The Supreme Court on Friday imposed costs on a petitioner who challenged the appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court..The public interest litigation (PIL) before the Court claimed that the oath administered to Justice Upadhyaya was defective.At the outset, a Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra remarked that there is a limit to the Court's tolerance for frivolous matters."There is a limit to frivolity in the Supreme Court. A minute of our time has an impact of finances etc...There is a pre-condition of depositing ₹1 lakh in Supreme Court before we hear this case now," the CJI remarked..The counsel for the petitioner argued that while taking his oath, the Chief Justice did not use the word 'I' before taking his name. This, he argued, was in contravention of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Further, it was contended that representatives from the union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu was not invited to the oath..The Bench observed that since the oath was administered by the Governor and subsequently subscribed to, such objections cannot be raised.CJI Chandrachud eventually stated in the order,"This is a frivolous attempt to garner publicity for the petitioner. This deflects attention of Court from more serious cases and consumes judicial manpower and resources. Time has come to dissuade such petitions and hence cost imposed on the petitioner."
The Supreme Court on Friday imposed costs on a petitioner who challenged the appointment of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court..The public interest litigation (PIL) before the Court claimed that the oath administered to Justice Upadhyaya was defective.At the outset, a Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra remarked that there is a limit to the Court's tolerance for frivolous matters."There is a limit to frivolity in the Supreme Court. A minute of our time has an impact of finances etc...There is a pre-condition of depositing ₹1 lakh in Supreme Court before we hear this case now," the CJI remarked..The counsel for the petitioner argued that while taking his oath, the Chief Justice did not use the word 'I' before taking his name. This, he argued, was in contravention of the Third Schedule of the Constitution. Further, it was contended that representatives from the union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu was not invited to the oath..The Bench observed that since the oath was administered by the Governor and subsequently subscribed to, such objections cannot be raised.CJI Chandrachud eventually stated in the order,"This is a frivolous attempt to garner publicity for the petitioner. This deflects attention of Court from more serious cases and consumes judicial manpower and resources. Time has come to dissuade such petitions and hence cost imposed on the petitioner."
