Mathura violence: Allahabad HC rips into PIL to remove Muslim judge from Enquiry Commission

The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily upon a petitioner who sought to quash the appointment of retired judge Imtiaz Murtaza as head of the Enquiry Commission investigating the violence at Jawaharbagh park at Mathura..As reported by Times of India, the judgment was passed by a Bench comprising of justices Narayan Shukla and Suneet Kumar in a petition styled as public interest litigation and filed by BJP spokesperson Indra Pal Singh (petitioner). Asok Pande appeared for the petitioner while ASG Amarjeet Singh Ranhra appeared for the government..The petitioner had prayed for quashing Imtiaz Murtaza J’s appointment as well as a direction to appoint a commission headed by “some judge well versed with the Hindu Dharma” to inquire into the incident..Further, Singh had also sought a CBI investigation into the incident and a direction for registration of FIRs against police officers responsible for the deaths which took place at Jwaharbagh..When the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner chose not to press the prayer seeking removal of Murtaza. Instead, only the second prayer seeking CBI investigation and action against police officers was pressed..The Court. however, dismissed the petition but not before it came down heavily upon the petitioner and his lawyer..The Court made it clear that the petition had been filed for “cheap publicity” and not in any public interest. It also held that challenging the appointment of a judge on the basis of his religion is “without any foundation and basis” and has been done “with an ulterior motive”..“[We] have no doubt in holding that the petition which is styled as PIL is nothing but a camouflage to foster cheap and malicious publicity. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel, that the petitioner before the court is a political person and a busy body. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily the religion of the Judge appointed to head the Commission of Inquiry under Act, 1952. Such a pleading laid and pressed before a constitutional Court, admittedly, is against the constitutional scheme without any foundation and basis. Religion has not been assigned any role in the appointment of judges of commissions or for that matter for any office under the State, as such, the petition is not only malicious but has been filed with an ulterior motive which tantamounts to interfere not only with the judicial process but also goes to the root in questioning the constitutional scheme based on rule of law.”.The Court, therefore, held that the petition is “not a genuine petition” but has been filed with “some ulterior motive to gain political millage”..“Having considered the statement of law, we are of the view that the present petition is not a bonafide PIL but has been filed with some ulterior motive to gain political millage and to scandalize not only the administration of justice, but also the Government….. It is in this background, we hold that the petition styled as PIL is not a genuine petition filed for the aid and assistance of the families which have suffered due to the illegal occupation of the park by members of a self styled organization.”.The Court, therefore proceeded to impose costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner..The Court also tore into Asok Pande, the counsel for the petitioner..“In the given facts of this case, a serious issue on communal lines has been pleaded tarnishing the image of the Judge merely for the reason of his religion, which has been the modus operandi of Sri Pande in several earlier petitions drafted and filed by him..We are constrained to take notice of the fact that Sri Pande, a practicing lawyer of this Court, who has a standing at the Bar, however, since long has been indulging in reckless drafting, which is not only malicious and motivated but the conduct of the counsel is unbecoming of a legal practitioner which ultimately tantamounts to misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 1961).”.The High Court also noted that Pande has been admonished in earlier cases for his reckless petitions and uncouth conduct. The Court also took objection to the conduct of Pande in court, which it held was not in tune with the dignity and decorum of the court..“… the tone and tenor of Sri Pande while addressing the Court is of arrogance and threat which is also reflected from his body language. Upon being warned, Sri Pande would insist on advancing arguments without taking care of maintaining the decorum and dignity of the Court. Sri Pande would thereafter insist that his arguments be incorporated and noticed in the order irrespective of its legal relevance…..Having due regard to the contents of the plethora of petitions drafted and filed by Sri Pande and the averments made therein, we are, prima facie, of the opinion that Shri Pande is incorrigible.”.The Court held that Pande’s conduct is unbecoming of a responsible legal practitioner and is violative of the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961. It, therefore, proceeded to direct the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Pande to adjudge his suitability to continue practice as an Advocate..Read the full judgment below..Image of Justice Imtiyaz Mortaza taken from here.