Orissa High Court pulls up DSP for “scurillous” remarks on Advocate General

The Orissa High Court recently came down heavily on the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Intelligence posted at Bhubaneswar for making “scurrilous remarks” about the Advocate General of Orissa (AG)[Sasmita Sahoo and Others vs State of Odisha and Others].

The DSP had filed an affidavit last month before the Court objecting to Advocate General’s appearance in a matter, by alleging a possible conflict of interest.

Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy noted concerns that the affidavit containing serious allegations and personal aspersions was also publicized, leading to many media platforms reaching out to the AG for his response.

The State later sought a withdrawal of the affidavit. The DSP too filed a similar application and tendered an unconditional apology.

The Court allowed the withdrawal of the affidavit and expunged it from the case records. However, it criticised the DSP for having made unwarranted allegations against the AG.

The Court stated that such scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries cannot be encouraged.

“The trust of the people upon this institution should not be (belied) by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts’ orders. Purity is the hallmark of justice and justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people,” the Court stated. 

It also noted that although the Court had made a request for the AG's appearance, he eventually chose to recuse from arguing the matter. Since he did not argue on the merits of the case at all, there was no reason for the DSP to engage in mudslinging, the Court pointed out.

"Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for O.P. No.27 (DSP) should have guided her client properly, instead of creating all these mud slagging," it said.

The Court further restrained the media from publishing the contents of the DSP's earlier affidavit.

"The above order is passed to maintain the purity and sanctity of the judicial proceedings and to deter truant litigants from filing frivolous affidavits before this Court," the Court added.

Last month, the Court had requested the Advocate General to assist it in deciding a writ petition, given the complexity of the matter. However, the DSP, who was among the respondents/ opposing parties in the writ case, objected to the AG’s appearance.

The Court overruled the objection and fixed the matter for hearing on January 29, permitting the AG to argue the case.

However, on January 26, the DSP filed his affidavit objecting to the AG's appearance.

The DSP alleged that since the AG had previously represented the private parties involved in the writ case as a senior advocate, there was a conflict of interest in his appearance on the opposite side (for the State).

Therefore, the DSP contended that the AG should not argue the case.

After the affidavit was filed, the AG offered to recuse. He did not appear for the January 29 hearing and did not argue the case.

Therefore, after the State moved an application withdraw the controversial affidavit.

On February 3, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the affidavit. However, it made note to express its displeasure at the DSP for filing and publicising the affidavit. 

“The Court deprecates the action of Opp. Party No.27 [DSP], in filing such an objection affidavit on 21.01.2026, and making it public and thereby causing unnecessary harassment to learned Advocate General ... This Court also is inclined to issue a word of caution to Opp. Party No.27, from committing such mistake in future," the Court said.

The Court added that there was no occasion for the DSP to file such an affidavit since the AG had not addressed the Court on merits on January 15.

Senior Advocate B Routray appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Government Advocate Saswat Das appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate P Rath with advocate S Prust appeared for the DSP.

[Read order]