A litigant caused a brief uproar in New Delhi's Supreme Court on Friday by shouting at the bench and flinging papers, prompting security staff to intervene. The judges dismissed the petition without taking any punitive action against the petitioner.

मुख्य बिंदु (Key Takeaways)

  • Litigant from Etawah, Uttar Pradesh disrupted a Supreme Court hearing
  • Addressed judges as “Mr judicial servant” and demanded an FIR
  • Security removed him; bench dismissed the petition without sanction

New Delhi – On Friday, a litigant standing before a bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe erupted into a tirade, calling the judges “Mr judicial servant” and hurling a stack of papers into the air. The outburst briefly disturbed the decorum of the Supreme Court, but security personnel swiftly escorted the petitioner out of the courtroom.

Sequence of Events

Upon being asked whether he was appearing in person, the petitioner, identified as Prabal Pratap, answered affirmatively and immediately launched into a series of incoherent, unparliamentary remarks. He demanded that an FIR be lodged against an ACP in Vikasnagar, Lucknow, and accused a named company of running a nationwide cyber‑crime syndicate. Citing “155 pages of file,” he claimed all evidence was already on record. He then produced a bundle of documents, shouted that they be handed over to the Chief Justice, and tossed them toward the bench.

Security Intervention

Security staff intervened promptly, removing the agitator to restore order. The bench, while noting the petitioner’s “incoherent and unparliamentary utterances,” chose not to impose any disciplinary measures. In its order, the court stated that there was “no good ground to interfere” with the underlying judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petition along with all pending applications.

Historical Context

This incident echoes a similar disruption that occurred in October of the previous year, when Advocate Rakesh Kishore attempted to throw a shoe at then‑Chief Justice B. R. Gavai. Kishore’s act, prompted by the Chief Justice’s comments during a hearing on a Vishnu idol restoration plea, resulted in his removal from the Supreme Court Bar Association’s rolls and a suspension of his practising licence by the Bar Council of India.

Legal and Social Implications

While such theatrics often generate viral social‑media debates, the judiciary’s measured response underscores a commitment to uphold procedural integrity. The bench’s decision to forgo punitive action, citing the petitioner’s health and the lack of substantive merit, reflects a balance between maintaining courtroom discipline and avoiding amplification of dissent through legal penalties. The incident also highlights the growing need for robust security protocols and public education on lawful avenues for grievance redressal.