The Supreme Court on Friday disapproved of influential people engaging in prolonged legal battles, warning that such 'luxury litigation' delays hearings for genuine litigants. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on each of the two warring litigants for not approaching the court with clean hands.
The court rejected the plea of actress Rehana Khan and her lawyer Rizwan Siddique, who have been fighting legal battles for the past 11 years before different forums, including the Bar Council of India, Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court. The bench's strong remarks came as it noted that both parties had suppressed materials and failed to approach the court with clean hands.
"Each of these parties has come to us complaining of a wrong, and each has been the author of a good part of it. Between them, they have occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a high court and this court for 11 years. That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for reliefs they genuinely need. We record our strong disapproval of the conduct of both. In view of the conduct of each party, we find it fit to impose costs," the bench said.
The court further observed that the machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or extract advantage from a controversy of their own making. "Stripped of its theatre, what these proceedings disclose is a controversy which two litigants have between them manufactured, prolonged and brought to the highest court in the country, each in the hope that we would be sufficiently diverted by the spectacle to overlook their own part in creating it. We have not been," the bench added.
Background of the Dispute
The case traces back to 2013 when the woman, later identified as actress Rehana Khan, claimed that following an altercation with her brother, she visited the Malad Police Station and came into contact with a senior police official. She alleged that the official, under the guise of assisting her, kept in contact with her and thereafter attempted to sexually assault her. On this account, she approached the advocate, Rizwan Siddique, and shared confidential details of her personal life and material bearing on the allegations.
According to the woman, the advocate disclosed confidential client information to the media and issued a public notice without her consent, constituting professional misconduct. She subsequently made a complaint to the Bar Council of India (BCI), which initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the lawyer. The Disciplinary Committee found the advocate guilty of professional misconduct, suspended his licence for two years, and directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh to the complainant and Rs 2 lakh to the BCI.
Both parties challenged the Disciplinary Committee's decision before the Bombay High Court and later the Supreme Court, prolonging the dispute over a decade.
Court's Directive
The Supreme Court directed each party to pay Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. The bench also remarked, "It is sometimes said that in a trial the parties already know the truth, and that it is the judge who is on trial. The observation is a sobering one, and the present case illustrates why."
The court's decision underscores its view that such litigation consumes judicial time that could be used for cases of genuine litigants. The bench noted that neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves the court with credit. "We say at the outset, and give our reasons in what follows, that neither the appellant nor the respondent leaves this court with credit," it said.
As reported by The Times of India and Times Now, the court's strong words and financial penalty reflect its determination to curb the misuse of the judicial process by affluent litigants.