Supreme Court imposes costs of ₹3 lakh on Sanjiv Bhatt for filing repeated pleas

The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed costs of ₹3 lakh on former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt for repeatedly filing petitions in relation to a drug planting case against him [Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs State of Gujarat]..A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal said that Bhatt has been repeatedly filing petitions and proceeded to impose costs of ₹1 lakh for each of the three pleas which Bhatt filed. "How many times have you been to the Supreme Court? At least a dozen times? Last time Justice Gavai imposed ₹10k costs? This time 6 figures? Are you withdrawing? Justice Gavai was kind," said Justice Vikram Nath while imposing costs and dismissing the plea.The costs have to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association, the Court directed..The bench was hearing the former cop's appeals against a Gujarat High Court ruling from August 24 this year that had rejected his application raising concern about the fairness of the trial court judge hearing the drug planting case filed against him.Single-judge Justice Samir Dave had rejected a plea by Bhatt to transfer the trial, and refused to stay the effect of the order or stay the trial proceedings for a month.That application was filed challenging the trial court's decision to reject three applications earlier filed by Bhat with respect to the conduct of the trial proceedings in the case registered against him under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).Among these applications were pleas to allow Bhatt videoconference access to trial court proceedings and to rectify certain remarks made by the trial court in an interim order.Bhatt had claimed that these applications were rejected on the ground that they were dealt with while dismissing a plea to transfer the trial court proceedings.Against this backdrop, Bhatt had expressed concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the trial judge.Bhatt contended that the trial judge has been accommodating "disingenuous devilments" by the prosecution and jeopardising the defence's case and Bhatt's rights in the NDPS case.The bench was also hearing a plea by Bhatt seeking audio video recordings of the trial proceedings. During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat who appeared for Bhatt, argued that Bhatt had only asked for audio-video recordings and the same was not a crime. He also objected to the observations by the High Court that Bhatt was delaying trial in the matter."There has to be some reasoning. How can me calling prosecution witnesses as defence witnesses be termed vexatious," Kamat argued.However, the Court said that Bhatt has been regularly filing petitions before the top court."Dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh each for the three cases. He has been approaching court with the best of lawyers, certainly he can do something for the Gujarat advocates," the Court said while directing that costs be paid to GHCAA..The case arose from the arrest of a Rajasthan-based lawyer in 1996 by the Basankantha Police after drugs were seized from the advocate's hotel room in Palanpur, Rajasthan.Bhatt was the Superintendent of Police at Basankantha during the relevant time.However, later the Rajasthan Police claimed that Bhatt's team had lodged a false case and that the same was done only to harass the lawyer with regard to a property dispute.Bhatt was arrested in the case in September 2018 and has remained in jail since then.In February, this year, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by him challenging a January 2023 Gujarat High Court order which extended the time to complete the trial till March 31, 2023.The Supreme Court had termed the plea to be 'frivolous' and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on Bhatt.Bhatt is known for being a vocal critic of the Narendra Modi-led government.Prior to his dismissal from service, he had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court alleging that the Modi-led Gujarat government had a complicit role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.He was dismissed from service by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2015 on grounds of unauthorised absence from service.