A dramatic scene unfolded inside the Supreme Court on Friday after a man appearing as a petitioner-in-person interrupted proceedings, hurled verbal abuse at Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, tossed papers across the courtroom and was removed by security personnel.
The disruption occurred at around 11 am before a partial working-day Bench comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe.
The petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap, introduced himself before the Bench as "the sovereign". Referring to the judges as "judicial servants", he declared, "Mr Judicial Servant, I order you to order the registration of an FIR against the ASP, Lucknow, for running a syndicate in cybercrime."
Taken aback by the remarks, Justice KV Viswanathan responded, "You are ordering me? You are ordering us?"
The petitioner then began abusing the Chief Justice of India and flung papers into the courtroom, bringing the hearing to a halt.
Security personnel stationed inside the court acted swiftly, escorting him out of the courtroom before detaining him for some time in the DSP's office within the court premises.
Despite the disturbance, the Bench chose not to initiate contempt proceedings or adopt any other coercive measures against the petitioner.
Delivering the order, Justice Viswanathan said, "We do not propose to take any action against him. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we have perused the records. We find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
Later, the judge observed, "He is very disturbed... it's all frustration. We only have sympathies for him."
In the aftermath of the incident, the Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association wrote to Chief Justice Surya Kant, calling for "strong and strict action" against those responsible for the courtroom commotion.
The association urged immediate institutional intervention, alleging that selective circulation of courtroom clips by certain YouTube channels, social media handles and "self-styled journalists" was undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
It also sought stringent measures to safeguard the dignity, independence and authority of the institution.
The case before the Supreme Court stemmed from the petitioner's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order that had dismissed his writ petition against a ruling of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow.
The magistrate had directed that his application be treated as a private complaint rather than ordering the registration of an FIR. The Allahabad High Court ruled that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy against the trial court's order and granted him liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
After examining the record, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, bringing the proceedings to an end.
