The Supreme Court came down heavily on a Petitioner by imposing a cost of ₹100,000 for wasting time of the Supreme Court and the High Court by going on a frivolous litigation spree for 15 years through multiple meritless petitions, review petitions, appeals, and motions all stemming from his grievance for removal from service.

Issuing a stern warning to such unscrupulous litigants against playing with the judicial system the bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal gave a clear message that “...unscrupulous litigants like the petitioner for not daring to play with the Judicial System. Such type of litigants are not only polluting the stream of justice but putting hurdles in its dispensation to others. The precious judicial time which the petitioner has wasted, could very well be used for taking up the cases of other litigants who are waiting for justice.”

Calling his removal from service ‘well reasoned’ the bench noted that “Right to access justice is not absolute”, and it condemned the persistent misuse of the judicial process by a petitioner who, over 15 years, engaged in forum shopping and filed repetitive and meritless pleas.

“…the right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. When litigants, like the petitioner before us, engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system.” observed the bench.

The factual background is that the Petitioner was dismissed from his service in 2000 due to misconduct, specifically frequent and prolonged absences from duty without prior permission or intimation. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the Petitioner filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected.

Undeterred, he pursued litigation across multiple forums, engaging in forum shopping and filing petitions and complaints on the same cause of action. All forums consistently upheld his dismissal on grounds of misconduct. The Petitioner first approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Mumbai, which affirmed the validity of his dismissal. Dissatisfied, he filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, which upheld the CGIT’s decision.

The Petitioner subsequently filed a review petition against the High Court’s judgment. However, the Court dismissed the review petition, citing no apparent error on the face of the record. This led the Petitioner to file two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed.

He then approached the Ministry of Law & Justice, seeking an inquiry into the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court judges, including the Chief Justice, who had adjudicated his case. Due to a record discrepancy, his review petition was mistakenly listed again in 2015, five years after its dismissal, but it was dismissed once more.

Persisting in his efforts, the Petitioner sought permission to file a second review petition before the High Court, which was denied. He subsequently challenged the 2015 dismissal of the review petition, but this too was dismissed.

When judicial recourse seemed exhausted, the Petitioner filed complaints alleging corruption against the adjudicating judges, addressing his grievances to the then President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of the High Court. In 2021, the Chief Justice responded, stating that “without a proper review petition,nothing can be done to reopen the issues decided.”” Viewing this as an opportunity to re-litigate, the petitioner filed a second review petition accompanied by an application to condone a delay of 11 years.

Both the second review petition and the condonation application were dismissed by the High Court, which observed that the petitioner sought to take "disadvantage of the technical endorsement" of the Chief Justice. Against this dismissal, the petitioner filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court.

The bench referred to the cases of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs Union of India,Writ Petition(Criminal) /57/2014, Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others.,Civil Appeal /5239/2002, & K.C. Tharakan Vs State Bank of India & Ors., Diary No(s). 27458/2022 which had raised deterrence against frivolous appeals and petitions by imposition of costs on the litigating parties and accordingly the bench dismissed the SLP and imposed a cost of ₹ 1,00,000 /- (Rupees One Lakh) against the Petitioner which is to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. On failure, recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.

Case Title: Pandurang Vithal Kevne V. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 56230 Of 2024

Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR