Man Claims Oath of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Was
Man Claims Oath of Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Was "Defective," SC Charges Him Rs. 5 Lakhs

A PIL asking for an order directing the administration of a new oath to Justice DK Upadhyay, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, was rejected by the Supreme Court with costs.

The top judge of the Bombay High Court was accused of taking a “defective” oath in the PIL.


Observations by the Supreme Court
The Governor has delivered the oath, and because it was subscribed to after the delivery of the oath, such objections cannot be brought, according to a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Friday.

“The petitioner does not, and he cannot, contest that the right person was given the oath of office. Such objections cannot be addressed since the governor delivered the oath and it was subscribed to after it was given, the court ruled. Why the SC fined the petitioner
The top court assessed the petitioner a cost of Rs. 5 lakh, stating that this was only a foolish effort to utilise the PIL jurisdiction to get some notoriety for him. The bench, which also included Justices JB Padriwala and Manoj Misra, stated, “We are clearly of the view that such frivolous PILs occupy the time and attention of the Court, thereby deflecting the attention of the Court from more serious matters and consuming the infrastructure of the judicial manpower and Registry of the Court.”
The court should now impose exemplary costs on such bogus PILs, the document said.

“We accordingly dismiss the petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks,” the court said.

According to the Supreme Court, if the amount is not paid within the allotted time, it would be collected as unpaid land tax by the Collector and District Magistrate in Lucknow.

Who filed the petition?
Ashok Pandey filed a PIL with the Supreme Court, claiming that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature in Bombay gave him a “defective oath” that caused him to feel wronged.
What the PIL demanded
The petitioner claimed that the Chief Justice violated the Third Schedule of the Constitution by failing to place the word “I” before his name when taking the oath. Additionally, he said that the administrators and representatives of the governments of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, both of which are union territories, were not invited to the swearing ceremony.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here