Delhi HC dismisses ML Sharma’s PIL on arbitrariness, mala fides in Supreme Court Rules; Sharma chided for “rushing” to court

The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Advocate ML Sharma which challenged certain provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which make it mandatory for a Petitioner to disclose his annual income, PAN card details etc while filing a PIL before the Supreme Court. The Petition also sought to quash the procedure to be followed by petitioners who wished to argue their case in person as the same Rules were allegedly being applied to advocates as well..The PIL challenged Order XXXIX Rule 12 (2) (i) (a) of the 2013 Rules that mandate the disclosure of the petitioner’s annual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Card number. Sharma had also argued that the compulsory disclosure of annual income was a blatant violation of a petitioner’s privacy..The second provision that Sharma challenged in his petition was regarding those who appear as party-in-person, i.e. petitioners who do not engage a counsel before the Supreme Court. As per Order IV Rule 1 (c), a party-in-person must first file an application seeking the court’s permission to argue before the court..This individual will then have to meet the court’s Registrar who will assess the individual’s ability to provide the “necessary assistance” to the Court. This assessment will be done via an office report submitted to the court, which will then take a final decision..The clause reads.“….Such application shall, in the first instance, be placed before the concerned Registrar to interact with the party-in-person and give opinion by way of office report whether the party-in-person will be able to give necessary assistance to the Court for proper disposal of the mailer or an Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae.”.If the application is allowed by the Court then only the party-in-person will be permitted to appear and argue the case in person..A Division Bench of G Rohini and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the petition and said that the petitioner did not make adequate representation of his grievances, before the Supreme Court which would be the appropriate forum for the nature of his grievances. The Bench further observed that since a writ petition challenging the Rules was already filed by the SCBA and pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner himself an SCBA member, cannot be allowed to open an ‘independent front.’.On March 4 2015, during admission stage, the Bench had sought the assistance of former ASG, Sidharth Luthra. He had responded that a similar writ petition challenging the Rules in entirety was pending before the Supreme Court. Noting this response in the judgment, the Court said,.“Mr. Luthra informed us that a writ petition challenging the Rules in entirety, on the ground of the same having been made without meaningful consultation with the Bar, was already pending in the Supreme Court…….. Mr. Luthra informed us that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent in the matter. He also handed over a copy of Writ Petition (Civil) No.755/2014 preferred by the Supreme Court Bar Association in the Supreme Court inter alia for consideration of its representation dated 13th August, 2014 with respect to the said Rules and for suspension of operation of the Rules till then.”.Disagreeing with the contention of Sharma that the aforesaid Writ Petition challenged the entire Supreme Court Rules 2013 while he was challenging only some provisions in his petition, the Bench noted,.“The proper course for the petitioner would be to approach the Bar Association to also make a specific challenge to the subject Rule and / or avail of other remedies before the Supreme Court only. We also do not appreciate the petitioner rushing to this Court without even making any representation to the Supreme Court.….there is nothing before us to show that Order IV Rule 1(c) is being applied to Advocates also. Vis-à-vis the challenge to Order XXXVIII Rule 12(2) (i)(a), we may observe that the requirement for disclosure is qualified with “if any”. It is always open to the petitioner to make an application, furnishing the said particulars and requiring the same to be confidential. The petitioner, instead of doing any such thing, has rushed with this petition.”.The petition had arraigned the Registrar General of Supreme Court and Bar Council of Delhi as Respondents while alleging that the relevant provisions were ‘arbitrary and malafide’ that ought to be quashed for protecting hapless litigants who were unable to engage an advocate for assisting the Court.