The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by advocate Ashok Pandey seeking Rs 1 crore from the Union Government as compensation for cases he claimed to have filed to save former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra during the 2018 impeachment controversy.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi termed the petition misconceived and upheld the Allahabad High Court’s earlier decision rejecting the plea.
During the brief hearing, the bench questioned the basis of Pandey’s claim for monetary compensation. Chief Justice Kant pointed out that Pandey had appeared in the matters personally and had not incurred professional legal fees.
“You have not incurred any expenses? You appeared in person,” the CJI remarked.
Responding to the court’s query, Pandey submitted that he had spent around ₹2 lakh while pursuing the litigation and had even borrowed money from his daughter to meet the costs.
During the hearing, the bench also questioned the petitioner’s use of the term “Hon’ble” for the former Chief Justice while referring to him in court. Chief Justice Kant pointed out the contradiction, noting that Pandey had earlier made serious allegations against the judge.
“After making all nasty allegations against a judge, why are you using the word ‘Hon’ble’?” the CJI asked.
Pandey argued that he had approached the courts and initiated proceedings at a time when Justice Misra was facing impeachment proceedings in Parliament and claimed that no one had come forward to defend him. According to the petitioner, the legal actions he initiated were intended to prevent what he described as humiliation and injustice to the then Chief Justice.
The bench, however, was unconvinced by the argument and observed that public-spirited litigation cannot be treated as a paid service.
“You provided great social service to the institution. It is priceless. How can it be quantified at ₹1 crore or ₹2 crore?” Chief Justice Kant remarked in a sarcastic response to the petitioner’s claim.
Pandey had approached the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed his writ petition seeking a direction to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to pay him₹1 crore as legal fees and litigation expenses.
In the writ petition before the High Court, Pandey had claimed that he filed certain cases before the Supreme Court to protect Justice Misra from humiliation, insult, torture and removal during the political controversy surrounding the impeachment notice against him.
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla had rejected the plea, holding that the claim lacked legal basis. The High Court had also declined Pandey’s request to grant a certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution to enable him to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Pandey had also challenged the rejection of a representation he had sent to the President of India on February 28, 2024, seeking ₹1 crore for what he described as legal services rendered in defence of the then Chief Justice.
After the Supreme Court dismissed his plea on Thursday, Pandey requested a certificate to pursue further appeal, arguing that the case raised a substantial constitutional question regarding the relationship between the President and officials of the Ministry of Law and Justice. He contended that a reference forwarded by the President could not simply be rejected by the Ministry.
The bench, however, declined to entertain this request as well.
Justice Misra had faced an unprecedented impeachment notice in April 2018 when 71 Rajya Sabha members from seven opposition parties signed a motion seeking his removal. However, the notice was later rejected by then Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu, who held that the charges lacked substantial merit.