SC slams ‘luxury litigation’, says 11-year legal battle delayed genuine cases; imposes Rs 5 lakh cost each NEW DELHI: At a time when poor litigants have to wait in line for years to get their plea heard, Supreme Court Friday disapproved the practice of influential people indulging in “luxury litigation”, resulting in hearing of genuine cases getting delayed. It imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh each on warring litigants for not approaching the court with “clean hands”.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the plea of actress Rehana Khan and her lawyer Rizwan Siddique who have been fighting legal battles for past 11 years before different forums, including Bar Council of India, Bombay HC and SC.”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, an HC and this court for 11 years. That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for relief they genuinely needed. 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 bench noted that the two litigants approached the court in the confident expectation of vindication. “Every fact of consequence has had to be prised out of a record in which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelines 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.”Record in these matters makes for compelling reading. Litigation of this kind holds a certain fascination, and we do not pretend otherwise. But a court is not an auditorium, and the drama of a case is no measure of its merit. 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,” it said.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’No Full Press Conference’: US Envoy Gor On India’s ‘No Questions’ Request Before Modi-Trump Meet‘Represented India In 3 Nations’: Former Envoy Flags ‘Trouble Establishing Citizenship’ During SIRJaish Rebuilds Bahawalpur Complex Struck By India During Op Sindoor’India Can Attract Global Talent With Your Help’: PM Modi Meets Space Startups On National Space DayDelhi Cops Attacked With Chilli Powder & Bricks In Mukundpur; 17-Year-Old Arrested‘Plan To Meet Vance, Mamdani’: Why MEA Denied Permission For Telangana CM Revanth Reddy’s US Trip?’No Problem When Boys Do It’: Rahul Gandhi’s Attack At PM Modi Over Jantar Mantar AbuseYoutuber Ajeet Bharti Lists 4 Big Demands At Jantar Mantar, Calls For Reservation Reform And MeritPM Modi Meets BJP’s New Team At Delhi HQ As Party Pushes Vande Mataram Legacy Nationwide‘48 Hours Or Sit-In’: Abhijeet Dipke Warns After CJP Team Allegedly Attacked Near Jaipur School123Photostories6 subtle signs you’re being taken for granted by your partner10 baby names inspired by Sanskrit words that signify success and prosperity5 signs you’re losing yourself while trying to save your relationshipThe slow fade: 5 signs someone you love is pulling away5 best hair colours for Indian skin tones that instantly brighten your lookWhy the Manipuri bride’s traditional Potloi is in a league of its ownBlood in urine during monsoon is not always a UTI: Doctor reveals when you should worryOptical illusion personality test: What you see first reveals your secret weakness in loveHeart attack risk is not just about cholesterol: 7 warning factors doctors check that routine tests can missHina Khan recalls being brutally trolled over viral National Anthem video amid health struggles; Rubina Dilaik reveals her daughters received threats123Hot PicksTCS laptop monitoring softwareTNEA counselling3 year practice ruleCM Revanth ReddyWeather tomorrowNEET UG 2026US-Canada tradeSIM card rulesBank holiday todayTop TrendingMumbai Rape AirhostessReservation Hatao AndolanLucknow Double Murder SuicideMadhapur Road AccidentMaharashtra Hill TragedyAbhijeet DipkeJharkhand Factory FireRahul GandhiBengaluru RapidoAston Martin Crash
NEW DELHI: At a time when poor litigants have to wait in line for years to get their plea heard, Supreme Court Friday disapproved the practice of influential people indulging in “luxury litigation”, resulting in hearing of genuine cases getting delayed. It imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh each on warring litigants for not approaching the court with “clean hands”.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected the plea of actress Rehana Khan and her lawyer Rizwan Siddique who have been fighting legal battles for past 11 years before different forums, including Bar Council of India, Bombay HC and SC.“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, an HC and this court for 11 years. That time belonged to other litigants, waiting for relief they genuinely needed. 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 bench noted that the two litigants approached the court in the confident expectation of vindication. “Every fact of consequence has had to be prised out of a record in which suppression, embellishment and afterthought are the common currency of both sides. The machinery of justice is not a facility placed at the disposal of parties to settle scores, to salvage reputations they have themselves imperilled, or to extract advantage from a controversy of their own making.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
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.“Record in these matters makes for compelling reading. Litigation of this kind holds a certain fascination, and we do not pretend otherwise. But a court is not an auditorium, and the drama of a case is no measure of its merit. 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,” it said.
