Punjab and Haryana HC comes down heavily on frivolous contempt plea, imposes Rs 30,000 costs

During the hearing, counsel for the respondents told the court that the direction had already been complied with and that a speaking order had been passed on August 21, 2025.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Thursday dismissed a contempt petition and imposed costs of Rs 30,000 on the petitioner after finding that the directive had already been implemented.

The petition was filed by one Parkash Singh, alleging deliberate disobedience of a July 7, 2025, order passed in a writ petition. In that order, the high court had directed the respondents to decide a legal notice dated May 1, 2025, by passing a speaking order.

Thereafter, the single-judge bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed, “Despite the fact that order dated 07.07.2025 has already been complied with, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition, which is not even maintainable.” It added that such conduct “amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.”

The court went on to situate the case within a wider pattern of misuse of court processes, relying on an earlier decision of the same high court in the ‘Payal Chaudhary versus KAP Sinha IAS and others’ case, as well as multiple Supreme Court judgments cautioning against frivolous litigation.

Quoting from the Payal Chaudhary case, Justice Sharma underscored that engaging in “frivolous and vexatious litigation” undermines the foundations of the legal system.

Thursday’s order also reproduced strong observations of the Supreme Court in ‘Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh’, where the apex court had flagged the rise of what it described as a “new creed of litigants” with no respect for truth. Such litigants, the Supreme Court had said, “shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means” and are not entitled to any relief if they attempt to pollute the stream of justice.

Justice Sharma further cited the ‘Subrata Roy Sahara versus Union of India’ case, in which the Supreme Court had lamented that the Indian judicial system is “grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation” and reminded courts that for every irresponsible claim, there is “an innocent sufferer on the other side” who endures prolonged anxiety through no fault of their own.

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the high court said it was “incumbent upon this Court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants”. It emphasised that the time and resources of the court must be preserved for bona fide grievances that genuinely merit judicial consideration.

Dismissing the contempt petition, the court imposed costs of Rs 30,000 on the petitioner for filing what it termed a frivolous plea. The amount is to be paid to the respondents in equal shares of Rs 10,000 each within two weeks.