VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, claiming to be motivated by a desire to cleanse the judiciary, moved this petition by way of a public interest litigation for certain relief directed against respondents Nos. 1 to 7 but principally against respondent No. 3 for suo motu contempt action. When this petition came up for admission before us on 11th February, 1992 we found that the petition was not drafted in dignified language and abounded in the use of unwarranted adjectives. With a view to giving the petitioner an opportunity to present a properly drafted revised petition, we directed the Registry that if a revised petition is filed, the same may be annexed to this petition. Thereafter the petitioner instead of presenting a revised petition replaced a couple of words in the original petition itself. On 27th February, 1992 this Court observed that this action was not consistent with the order of 11th February , 1992 by which only a revised petition was permitted and amendments in the original petition had not been allowed. The report of the Registry was called to explain why the amendments were allowed. The report filed by the Registry dated 5th March, 1992 revealed that the concerned Section Officer had objected to the petitioner effecting change of words but the petitioner became aggressive and gave threats and insisted on filing the revised petition later and reiterated that he was permitted by the court to correct a few words in the present petition. On 6th March, 1992 when the petition came up before the Court., this Court observed that it would like the petitioner to explain his conduct as emanating from the Registry's report dated 5th March, 1992. A copy of the report was also supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revised petition and submitted his explanation in the form of an affidavit along with Annexures which we did not consider to be satisfactory. Allegations were also made against the Registry and the Registrar General's report was challenged as false, frivolous and highly mischievous. After hearing the petitioner on 22nd March, 1993, we drew his attention to the language used as well as the allegations made therein and expressed our displeasure in that regard. Thereafer the petitioner filed another affidavit dated 24th March, 1993 to the following effect :