In a shocking incident, a litigant recently placed a miscarried foetus in front of the judge during the hearing of a case seeking action against Maruti Suzuki India Limited..The development took place in the courtroom of Justice Himanshu Joshi on March 9. According to a court order, the litigant did it to evoke the Court's sympathy.The Court called the litigant's action highly objectionable and improper, adding that it amounted to lowering the dignity and decorum of the Court. Court proceedings cannot be converted into a platform for emotional display or for attempting to secure undue sympathy, the judge said."While this Court expresses its sympathy for any personal loss or grief that the petitioner and his family may have suffered, it is equally necessary to emphasise that the Court functions on the basis of law and evidence. The Court is the same for every litigant and the grief or suffering of one party cannot be weighed against that of another to influence the judicial process. Justice is administered strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of legally admissible material placed on record, and not on emotional considerations or theatrical conduct in the Courtroom," Justice Joshi said..The petitioner, Dayashankar Pandey, had approached the Court seeking directions for an impartial investigation against Maruti Suzuki India, recovery of an alleged amount of more than ₹200 crore from it and a payment of compensation to him as well as to the Government of India and the Government of Madhya Pradesh.Pandey claimed to have exposed embezzlement and theft of more than ₹200 crore in Maruti Suzuki. He alleged that because of such expose, he and his family members have been subjected to threats and physical attacks on several occasions.In particular, he said that he, his wife and his daughter were recently attacked by a car, resulting in miscarriage of his wife. He also said that his daughter was severely injured in in a pre-planned incident of a fire attack on his car, leading to her disability. Claiming official inaction despite multiple complaints, Pandey sought a compensation of ₹82 lakh for medical treatment of his daughter and for alleged defamation..However, the Court found the plea to be vague and bereft of any material particulars."The manner in which sweeping allegations have been made against various authorities and a private company, without any cogent material, clearly indicates that the petition lacks bona fides. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations," the Bench said.Further, the Court noted that Pandey had earlier prayed for euthanasia but later altered his stand and was presently seeking compensation and damages for himself."Such shifting stands and repeated invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, without placing any cogent supporting evidence or material on record, clearly indicates that the petitioner is indulging in vexatious and speculative litigation. The conduct of the petitioner thus reflects that he is a litigious person attempting to repeatedly agitate the same issue before this Court without pursuing the remedies as earlier directed," the Court said, while dismissing Pandey's plea..The Court went on to censure Pandey for his conduct. It said that bringing a miscarried foetus into the courtroom was wholly improper and contrary to law. "A foetus, being human anatomical material, is required to be handled and disposed of strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016. Unauthorised carrying and display of such remains in a public place like a Courtroom not only violates the prescribed procedure but also prima facie amounts to offering indignity to a human corpse punishable under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Such conduct is also capable of disturbing the decorum and dignity of the Court," the Bench said..The Court cautioned Pandey that such conduct must not be repeated in future before any other judicial forum or public authority. "Any attempt to disturb the dignity, decorum and orderly functioning of judicial proceedings by resorting to such acts is wholly impermissible and cannot be tolerated in a Court of law. The petitioner is, therefore, warned to maintain proper decorum and to conduct himself in a responsible and respectful manner while appearing before any Court or authority," the Bench said.It added that in the event of repetition of such conduct in future, the concerned Court or authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law..Dayashankar Pandey appeared in person.Deputy Advocate General Vivek Sharma with Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra appeared for the State.Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma with Advocate Lavanya Verma appeared for Maruti Suzuki.[Read Order]
