1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1238 OF 2019 (DIARY NO.10342 OF 2016)

With (Interlocutory Application Nos.128666/2017, 123144/2017,

122625/2017, 127773/2017, 30030/2018, 112422/2018 and 110313 of 2019)

Seema Sapra  ..…Appellant(s)  

Versus

Court On Its Own Motion  ….Respondent(s)

With  

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018  (alongwith C.M.P. No.4015 of 2018 and Interlocutory Application

Nos.62789 of 2019, 99303 of 2019 and 61232 of 2019)

&  Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018

(alongwith C.M.P. Nos.122904 of 2018 and 97450 of 2018)   

O R D E R  

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under

Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 assailing the

2

judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th December, 2015

holding the  appellant guilty of  having committed contempt of

Court and imposing punishment of imprisonment for a period of

one month and a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees Two Thousand Only)

to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of

the order, failing which undergo a further term of imprisonment

of one month with a further direction restraining the appellant to

argue as an advocate or in­person, except in her defence, before

any Bench of the High Court of Delhi or any Court or Tribunal

subordinate to the High Court of Delhi for a period of two years

from the date of passing of the impugned judgment dated 17th

December, 2015.  

2. The appellant had been exempted  from surrendering vide

order of the Chamber Judge dated 9th October, 2017. Notice was

issued on the applications as well as on the appeal vide order

dated 26th March, 2018, which has been duly served.  

3. We have heard the parties. During the course of hearing,

the  appellant­in­person made an oral request that this  Bench

ought to  recuse from hearing the  matter  which  fact  has  been

3

noted in  our  order  dated  11th  April,  2019  while reserving the

order. The same reads thus:

“We have heard the petitioner in­person.  

She is at liberty to file additional  documents, which were referred to during the course of argument or any further document(s) which she intends to file.

 She prays for four weeks’ time to do so.  

Appropriate order will be passed after the additional document(s) are filed.  

After hearing the petitioner in­person for almost two hours and this order being dictated, the petitioner submits that this Bench should not hear these matters.

 Even this submission will be considered in the

order that we may pass after considering the document(s).  

Orders reserved.”

4. Instead of filing additional documents in terms of the liberty

given to the appellant in the aforementioned order, she moved an

I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 on 12 th

April,  2019. We will take it  up  for consideration while dealing

with the main writ petition in which the same has been filed. For

the present, suffice to point out that one of the reliefs claimed in

the said application is that the cases be listed before a Bench not

comprising  of  one  of  us (A.M.  Khanwilkar,  J.).  The  appellant,

4

however, mentioned the matter on 6th May, 2019 to inform the

Court about filing of the said application. Since the mentioning

was done before a different Bench, the application could not be

taken up for hearing and was directed to be listed on 2nd  July,

2019. Again, on 2nd  July, 2019, the cases were listed before a

different Bench and not the same combination which had heard

the matters on 11th  April, 2019. It was, therefore, ordered that

the cases be listed before the same Bench which had heard the

matter on 11th  April, 2019 and reserved order therein.

Accordingly, the cases were listed on 12th July, 2019 before the

specially constituted Bench. After hearing the appellant­in­

person, the Court passed the following order:

“We have heard the petitioner­in­person on the applications for  issue of appropriate directions/order and for modification of previous Court order, for over one hour.

 After  hearing the petitioner­in­person  for  quite

some time, we asked her to confine her arguments to the issues which may require our consideration. She submitted that one of us (A. M. Khanwilkar, J.) should recuse. For that, she invited our attention to the averment made in I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in particular. Such request cannot be accepted merely for asking by the petitioner­in­person. Reasons for not accepting that prayer will be elaborated in the order to be passed as noted in our previous order dated 11.04.2019.

5

It is  open to  the petitioner to  file list  of  dates and/or any other relevant document(s), if she so desires. That be filed within two weeks.  

We reiterate that all aspects will be considered and appropriate orders passed on the concerned proceedings, to be pronounced later.”

5. We  must, at the outset, deal  with the gravamen of the

apprehension  of the  appellant  as to  why  she  has insisted for

recusal of one  of  us (A.M.  Khanwilkar,  J.).  Even  on  a liberal

reading of the averments in the stated application, the

apprehension of the appellant is founded on the allegation that

she may not get justice from the Bench as Justice A.M.

Khanwilkar is well acquainted with the Advocates who

incidentally are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association

against whom personal allegations have been made by her in the

accompanying writ petition.

6. We must usefully refer to  Court On Its Own Motion Vs.

State1 (paragraph 28), in which it has been observed as follows:

“The path of recluse is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest  in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins  the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and

1 MANU/DE/2758/2007

6

judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favor affection or ill will while upholding the constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or brow­beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office.”   

It is  also pertinent to  remind ourselves of the  dictum of  Lord

Denning who observed in  R. Vs. Metropolitan Police

Commissioner ex p. Blackburn2 as under:

“All we would ask is that that those who criticize us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticism. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We  must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication. Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occasion requires provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.”  

7. Reverting to the present cases, it is noticed from the

impugned judgment that around 28 Judges of the High Court of

Delhi, who had heard the writ petition filed by the appellant, had

to recuse by the time the writ petition was finally decided on 2nd

March, 2015. Even after filing of the instant criminal appeal at

least three Judges of this Court have recused themselves, for one

2 (1968) 2 AII ER 319

7

reason or the other. Not only that,  the appellant had moved a

formal  application being  I.A.  No.30030 of  2018  in  the present

appeal to recall the order passed on 7th  February, 2018

appointing Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh as Amicus Curiae,

as she had strong objection to his appointment.  Similarly,  the

appellant  had  filed I.A.  No.111244 of  2017  for recall of  order

dated 27th  October, 2017 appointing Ms. Pinky Anand, learned

Additional Solicitor General to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

That application was also allowed by this Court vide order dated

4th December, 2017.  

8. Be that  as  it  may,  after the matter  was assigned to  this

Bench during the hearing, which lasted for more than two hours

on 11th April, 2019, the appellant had orally suggested that this

Bench should not hear the cases as has been noted in the said

order. On that day, the Court reserved its order giving liberty to

the appellant to file additional documents to reinforce her

arguments on the merits of the contempt proceedings, as insisted

by her  during  the  oral  submission. Instead of  availing of that

liberty, the appellant chose to file I.A. No.62789 of 2019 in Writ

Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 praying for recusal of one of us (A.M.

8

Khanwilkar, J.).  However,  keeping in  mind the totality of the

situation, the Court declined her prayer as recorded in the order

dated 12th July, 2019.  

9. Indubitably, it is always open for a Judge to recuse at his

own volition from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice.

But, that may be a matter of his own choosing. Recusal, at the

asking of the litigating party, cannot be countenanced unless it

deserves  due consideration  and is justified.  We  draw  support

from the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court

Advocates­On­Record Association and Another Vs. Union of

India3. It must never be forgotten that an impartial Judge is the

quintessence for a fair trial and one should not hesitate to recuse

if there are just and reasonable grounds. At the same time, one

cannot be oblivious of the duty of a Judge which is to discharge

his responsibility with absolute earnestness, sincerity and being

true to the oath of his/her office. After perusal of the assertions

made in the stated I.A.s, we have no hesitation in observing that

the same  are  devoid of  merit and  without  any  substance.  To

observe sobriety, however, we say no more.

3 (2016) 5 SCC 808

9

10. Reverting to the criminal appeal, after hearing the parties

and the same being a statutory appeal preferred by the appellant

against the finding of guilt and punishment under the Contempt

of Courts Act, 1971, the same requires due consideration

although there is a delay of 32 days as stated in I.A. No.128666

of 2017. The delay in filing appeal is condoned in terms of this

order. Appeal be registered by the office. The appeal is admitted.

Fresh notice be issued to the respondents.

 11. The appellant has prayed for stay of operation of the

impugned judgment and order pending hearing and decision on

this appeal. As it appears from the record that two years period

for which the appellant has been restrained from appearing in

the High Court of Delhi and Courts Subordinate thereunder in

terms of the impugned judgment is already over, nevertheless we

consider it appropriate to stay the effect of the impugned

judgment and order dated 17th December, 2015 until disposal of

the  appeal.  Accordingly,  prayer for stay is  disposed  of in the

above terms.

10

12. Now, we may  take up the  other  applications  filed by  the

appellant in the criminal appeal under consideration in seriatim.

I.A. No.128666 of 2017 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

13. This application is for condoning  delay in filing criminal

appeal. As noted in paragraph 10 above, the same is allowed.  

I.A. No.30030 of 2018 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

14. By this application, appellant  has  prayed that the order

dated 7th  February, 2018 appointing Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas

Singh be recalled. That prayer has been granted in terms of order

dated 30th  July, 2018 passed by the Court. The other relief

claimed in the application is to issue notice to the office of the

Attorney  General for India, which is similar to one  made in

another application filed by the appellant. As the criminal appeal

has been admitted, the Registry shall proceed in the matter as

11

per the  Rules.  Hence, no further orders are required in that

regard.  

15. The appellant has then prayed for giving a qualified lawyer;

to give appellant a full and fair hearing in the matter. The record

shows that fair hearing has been given to the appellant thus far;

and it would be extended even after admission of the appeal. No

formal order is required in that regard.  

16. Accordingly, the application under consideration is disposed

of.  

I.A. No.123144 of 2017 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

17. By this application, appellant has prayed that hearing of the

appeal  be referred to  a Five  Judge Constitution Bench of this

Court. This prayer, to say the least, is premature. For, so long as

the  Court  does  not take  up the  appeal for final  hearing, the

question  of referring the  matter to a  Five  Judge  Constitution

Bench that too before the appeal is admitted cannot be

12

countenanced. This application is disposed of while giving liberty

to the appellant to persuade the Court at the time of final hearing

of the appeal to refer the case to a Five Judge  Constitution

Bench. If the concerned Court finds merit in that submission, the

Court may accede to that prayer. This application is disposed of

accordingly.  

I.A. No.122625 of 2017 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

18.    By this application, appellant has prayed for a direction to

summon the paper book and the electronic record of Delhi High

Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1280 of 2012, Contempt Case (Crl.)

No.2/2014, Contempt Case (Crl.) No.3/2012 and O.M.P.

No.647/2012. As the present appeal arises from Contempt Case

(Crl.) No.2/2014, and the appeal having been admitted for final

hearing, the Registry may take steps as per the Rules  in that

regard. So far as the record of other proceedings referred to in

this application, we keep it open to the appellant to make that

request at the final hearing of the present criminal appeal. That

13

request can be considered at the appropriate stage. The

application is disposed of accordingly.  

I.A. No.127773 of 2017 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

19.   By this application, appellant has sought direction against

the  Registry  of this  Court to  ensure  that the records of these

cases are maintained properly. The grievance in this application

is founded on some clerical  error in the order  passed by this

Court in the past. It is seen that the same has been rectified.  

20. We are of the view that no general direction to the Registry

as prayed is warranted. Inasmuch as, the Registry is required to

maintain and secure the record of all cases as per the Rules and

if there  is  some error  in the records, it is  always open to the

parties to bring it to the notice of the Court. As and when such

occasion arises in future, appropriate direction can be given by

the Court. The application is disposed of accordingly.

I.A. No.112422 of 2018 IN

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

14

21. By this application, appellant has prayed that she may be

permitted to place on record documents mentioned in paragraph

Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the application which according to her are

fraudulent,  invalid and forged documents. The same were filed

before the High Court of  Delhi in Writ  Petition (C)  No.1280 of

2012 on behalf of General Electric Company, GE India Industrial

Private Limited and GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited.  

22. As regards the contempt proceedings, in relation to which

the instant criminal appeal arises, the question is limited to the

utterances made by the appellant before the High Court on 6th

May, 2014; and as to whether the same would constitute criminal

contempt in the face of the Court. No other issue is required to be

considered. Suffice it to observe that the stated documents have

no relevance to the question required to be answered in the

present criminal appeal regarding the alleged utterances made by

the  appellant  before the  Delhi  High  Court. The  application is

disposed of accordingly.  

I.A. No.110313 of 2019 IN

15

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016

23.   This application has been filed on 26th July, 2019 after the

matters were heard lastly on 12th July, 2019, praying for listing of

cases before a Bench not comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

and Justice Ajay Rastogi. For the reasons already noted hitherto

and  for rejecting the  prayer in I.A.  No.62789 of  2019  in Writ

petition (C)  No.13  of 2018, this application should follow the

same suit and is rejected.  

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

24. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has sought mandamus against the

respondents to ensure that the petitioner, who claims to be

whistle­blower is not poisoned or harmed or harassed or targeted

or followed in any manner and her complaint regarding sexual

harassment against the two  named  members of the  Supreme

Court Bar Association be proceeded as per  law. The petitioner

has prayed as follows:

16

“It  is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:­

(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to immediately ensure that the Petitioner whistle­blower is not poisoned or harmed or harassed or targeted or followed in any manner and to ensure that the fundamental right to life of the Petitioner who is a whistle­blower and a complaint of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not violated and that the petitioner who is an advocate, a whistleblower against General Electric Company  and  a complainant of   sexual harassment against Raian Karanjawala and of sexual harassment and sexual assault against Soli J Sorabjee is protected and stays safe;

(ii) To pass such other orders and further orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

25. This writ petition came up for consideration on 1st March,

2019, the Court passed the following order:

“Ms. Seema Sapra, Advocate, who is appearing as the petitioner­in­person in these writ petitions, has mentioned before this Court today that she has been assaulted by some policemen outside the High Court of Delhi last night.  

It would be appropriate if Ms. Sapra, petitioner­ in­person, files  an  First Information  Report (FIR) to that effect in the Office of appropriate Deputy Commissioner of Police who is in­charge of the Tilak Marg  Police  Station,  New Delhi.  She  may  also seek

17

police protection since she apprehends danger to her life.

 As prayed for, liberty is also granted to  Ms.

Sapra, petitioner­in­person, to file interlocutory application for directions in the main writ petitions.”

Pursuant to the aforementioned order the petitioner was free to

approach the office of the concerned Commissioner of Police and

seek police protection if she apprehended danger to her life. If the

authorities had failed to take necessary action despite such

request made by her, it was and will be open to the petitioner to

pursue appropriate remedy in that regard. During the course of

hearing, we were informed by the petitioner that she has filed a

writ petition in the Delhi High Court. In that case, the petitioner

may pursue that remedy to its logical end. If the relief claimed in

the said writ petition is insufficient, it will be open to the

petitioner to amend the said writ petition and/or to file a

substantive writ petition if fresh cause of action has arisen. We

grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue that remedy as per law.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.  

C.M.P. No.4015 of 2018 IN

18

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018

26. Nothing survives  in  this  application as the petitioner has

already been allowed to appear in­person. Hence, we dispose of

the present application.  

I.A. No.62789 of 2019 IN

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018

27. By this application, the petitioner has prayed as under:  

“  P R A Y E R S a) Recall/modify its order dated 11th  April, 2019 in

Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016, in Writ Petition  Civil  No.13/2018  and in  Writ Petition  Civil No.1027/2018 and list these cases for hearing the Petitioner in open court on the medical evidence establishing that she was poisoned, that her ankle was deliberately dislocated, that her whistle­blower complaints of corruption against General Electric Company have been covered up and that Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012 before the Delhi High Court was subverted by  fraud on  the  court  as  described  in IA 112422/2018 and by the filing of false affidavits and fabricated documents by the Railway Ministry;

b) Recall/modify its order dated 11th  April, 2019 in Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016, in Writ Petition  Civil  No.13/2018  and in  Writ Petition  Civil No.1027/2018 and summon the record of the Delhi High Court in Writ  Petition Civil  No.1280/2012 and allow the Petitioner to make submission on these documents establishing both her corruption complaints against General Electric Company and her complaints of poisoning and targeting;

c) Recall/modify its order dated 11th  April, 2019 in Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016, in Writ

19

Petition  Civil  No.13/2018  and in  Writ Petition  Civil No.1027/2018 and direct that these  cases  be listed before a Bench not comprising Justice Khanwilkar;

d) Recall/modify its order dated 11th  April, 2019 in Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016, in Writ Petition  Civil  No.13/2018  and in  Writ Petition  Civil No.1027/2018 and list all three cases for hearing and permit the Petitioner to make her oral submissions in open court on the merits of these three cases separately on  law and facts as this hearing has not taken place;

e) Direct the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and direct the Delhi Police through the Commissioner of Police to provide immediate protection to the Petitioner to prevent her being poisoned further or being targeted in any manner as the life of the Petitioner  must be protected and a situation where the Petitioner is eliminated or incapacitated cannot be allowed to develop;

f) Direct that the Petitioner be protected so that she is able to file affidavits and documents bringing further relevant  facts  on record  including her  complaints of poisoning after 2015 March and then list these cases for hearing the Petitioner on these documents in open court;

g) Pass any other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

As regards the prayer to direct that the cases be not listed before

a Bench comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, the same has

already been rejected in the earlier part of this order. The prayer

for recall of order dated 11th April, 2019 and for hearing of cases

20

in open Court also stands redressed as the matters were heard in

open Court on 12th July, 2019. Further, considering the fact that

we have already given liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy

of fresh writ petition filed by her in Delhi High Court including to

pursue such other remedies as  may be permissible in law,

coupled with  the  fact that  the main relief  claimed  in  the writ

petition was limited to issue of direction to protect liberty of the

petitioner which has been redressed in terms of order dated 1st

March, 2019, without expressing any opinion on the correctness

of the assertions made in the application one way or the other

and leaving all contentions and remedies available to the

petitioner in that regard open,  we dispose  of this  application.

Ordered accordingly.

I.A. No.99303 of 2019 IN

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018

28. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:                  

“P R A Y E R S

a) Direct the Government of India though the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide the Petitioner

21

with some temporary independent housing which is within the control of the Petitioner and where she can take steps to protect herself;

b) Direct the Government of India through the Ministry of  Home Affairs to take note that the Petitioner facing a threat to her life is being forced to sleep in a tent in Lodhi Gardens and where she has been poisoned on 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 July 2019 and has been prevented from obtaining sleep for more than 3­4 hours.  

c) Direct the Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the Petitioner is not poisoned and to address her complaint of poisoning;

d) List IA 62789/2019 before an appropriate Bench at the earliest on an urgent basis and thereafter list this  Writ Petition Civil No.13/2018,  Writ Petition Civil No.1027/2018 and Criminal Appeal Diary No.10342/2016 for a full and fair hearing basis as the petitioner faces a grave and immediate threat to her life and well­being;

e) pass any other or further orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

For the reasons recorded hitherto, while dealing with the

previous application and the main writ petition,  we dispose of

this application with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the writ

petition filed before the High Court and/or any other appropriate

remedy as per law.  We  must, however, record that by this

application, the petitioner has prayed for substantive relief that

too beyond the relief claimed in the main writ petition.

22

29. Be that as it may, we do not deem it appropriate to enlarge

the scope of the present writ petition moreso because the

petitioner has already elected to move the Delhi High Court. In

the  same way, the petitioner  can pursue additional  or further

relief claimed in this application before that Court. We give that

liberty to the petitioner and dispose of this application

accordingly.

I.A. No.61232 of 2019 IN

Writ Petition (C) No.13 of 2018

30. By this application, the petitioner has sought direction

against respondent No.1 to immediately provide Z+ Security to

her and full protection to ensure that she is not poisoned further

or targeted or followed or threatened or intimidated. This relief is

another shade of the substantive relief claimed in the main writ

petition and also in the companion writ petition. Even this

application, therefore, is  disposed  of for the same reasons  as

noted in reference to the main writ petition, on the same terms.

Ordered accordingly.

23

Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018

31. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed as follows:  

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent 1, the Government of India through the  Ministry of  Home Affairs to act on the Petitioner’s complaint forwarded to the President and Prime Minister of India by email dated February 12, 2013 and to constitute a high level complaints committee in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions in Vishaka  &  Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others  and  in  Medha Kotwal  Lele  and Others v.  Union of India and  Others to investigate zand redress the petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment against  Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee,  when the latter held the constitutional post of Attorney General of India;

(ii) Direct the CBI and Police to register an FIR against Soli J Sorabjee for sexually assaulting the petitioner and attempting to rape her after plying her with alcohol and after possibly drugging her;

(iii) direct the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal  Complaints  Committee to examine the petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment against Raian N Karanjawala;

(iv) In the alternative to prayer (i), direct the Supreme Court Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee to examine the petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment against Soli J Sorabjee;

(v) Direct the respondent no.1 to provide the petitioner with Z+ security; (vi) To  pass  such other  orders  and  further  orders and to issue such other and further writs as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”  

32. As noted while disposing of the accompanying writ petition,

we deem it appropriate to dispose of even this writ petition with

24

liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy before the Delhi High

Court, already filed by the petitioner. In our opinion, it may not

be appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach different

forums for overlapping issues concerning her security or her

grievance regarding inaction  of the  Authorities to  process  her

complaint regarding sexual harassment. Accordingly, we dispose

of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue

remedy before the Delhi High Court in the pending proceedings

or by way of substantive proceedings so that all the overlapping

issues can be considered by the Court appropriately.   

C.M.P. No.122904 of 2018 IN

Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018

33. Nothing survives in this C.M.P. No.122904 of 2018 as the

petitioner has been allowed to appear in­person. Hence, we

dispose  of the  present  application also  because  the  main writ

petition is disposed of.  

C.M.P. No.97450 of 2018 IN

Writ Petition (C) No.1027 of 2018

25

34. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:

“(i) To direct the Supreme Court registry to dispense with the office objections in this writ petition and to list the  writ petition for hearing before the  Hon’ble Court at the earliest possible date;

(ii) To summon the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil No.1280/2012, Cont. Case (Crl.) 2/2014, Cont. Case (Crl.) 3/2012, and  O.M.P.647/2012, all from the High Court of Delhi;

(iii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may  be  deemed  necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”   

As regards relief (i), that does not survive for consideration as the

writ petition itself has been disposed of. Further, the second relief

is similar to one in I.A. No.122625 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal

No.10342 of  2016.  For the  same reasons, therefore,  even  this

application is disposed of.   

     ……………………………..J       (A.M. Khanwilkar)

     ……………………………..J       (Ajay Rastogi)

26

New Delhi; August 14, 2019.