The Supreme Court was compelled to address an unusual case involving a plea from a litigant requesting the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against several judges of the Delhi High Court. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi formed a bench that engaged with the petitioner and highlighted the complexities involved in prosecuting judges for their judicial decisions.

They raised a crucial question regarding the legal framework, asking, "Tell me under which law judges are liable to be prosecuted for giving judgments against you? Just because there are illegal, perverse petitions being filed. You cannot ask FIRs against judges."

This discussion unfolded following the petitioner's counsel’s claim, indicating efforts to seek a FIR against the sitting judges. The lawyer remarked on the plea, imparting, "This plea seeks registration of FIR against sitting HC judges. The issue is when I am the topper of the exam, but all judges... ideally the case should be heard by court 1."

As the conversation progressed, the Court expressed that it struggled to grasp the matter's nuances clearly. Consequently, the Court decided to appoint Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar as amicus curiae to assist in understanding the legal implications at play.

The Court stated, "We appoint Dr. Muralidhar as an amicus. Let the paper book of plea be provided to the amicus,"

Source : News