New Delhi, July 10: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to initiate any action against a litigant who created a ruckus inside a courtroom by throwing case papers, hurling abuses at judges, and verbally abusing the Chief Justice of India before being escorted out by security personnel.
A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe observed that the petitioner-in-person, Prabal Pratap, made “incoherent and unparliamentary utterances” instead of arguing his case. However, considering his condition, the Court decided not to proceed against him.
The incident occurred during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition filed by Pratap challenging an April 2026 judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
At the outset of the hearing, instead of making legal submissions, Pratap addressed the Bench in an unusual manner, saying, “Mr judicial servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Lucknow.”
Reacting to the remark, Justice Viswanathan asked, “You are ordering me? You are ordering us?” To this, Pratap replied, “That is all from my side. Everything is on record.”
Shortly thereafter, the courtroom witnessed chaotic scenes as Pratap allegedly threw case papers into the air, abused the judges in open court and, while being escorted out by security personnel, also verbally abused Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the report said.
In its order uploaded later, the Bench recorded that “instead of presenting the case, [the petitioner] made incoherent and unparliamentary utterances.”
Despite the disruption, the Court decided against initiating contempt proceedings.
“We have, however, considering the condition of the petitioner above named, do not propose to take any action against him,” the Bench said.
On the merits of the case, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s decision.
“As far as the merit of this case is concerned, we have perused the records, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment/order(s). The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” the Court said.
(With inputs from Bar & Bench)
