The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a stern stance against the misuse of judicial time, dismissing a contempt petition and imposing a significant cost of Rs 30,000 on the petitioner. The court found the plea to be entirely frivolous, as the order it sought to enforce had already been complied with months prior.
Court Decries Abuse of Judicial Process
Justice Sudeepti Sharma, presiding over the case, delivered a strongly-worded order on Thursday, January 9, 2026. The petition was filed by one Parkash Singh, who alleged deliberate disobedience of a High Court order dated July 7, 2025. That original writ petition order had directed the respondents to decide on a legal notice from May 1, 2025, by passing a speaking order.
However, during the hearing, the counsel for the respondents informed the court that this directive had already been fulfilled. A speaking order was passed on August 21, 2025, and a copy was placed on record and supplied to the petitioner's counsel. Despite this clear compliance, the petitioner proceeded with the contempt plea.
Bench Cites Supreme Court on Litigation Menace
Justice Sharma observed that filing such a petition when the original order was already complied with rendered the contempt plea "not even maintainable." The court stated this conduct "amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process" and significantly contributes to the overwhelming backlog of cases.
The order placed this specific instance within a broader, troubling pattern of court process misuse. Justice Sharma relied on several precedent-setting judgments:
- The 'Payal Chaudhary versus KAP Sinha IAS and others' case from the same High Court, which underscored that frivolous and vexatious litigation undermines the legal system's foundations.
- The Supreme Court's ruling in 'Dalip Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh', which warned about a "new creed of litigants" with no respect for truth, who resort to falsehood.
- The landmark 'Subrata Roy Sahara versus Union of India' case, where the Supreme Court lamented that the Indian judicial system is "grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation." The apex court had reminded that for every irresponsible claim, there is an innocent sufferer enduring prolonged anxiety.
Costs Imposed to Safeguard Judicial Sanctity
Applying these principles, Justice Sharma emphasized that it was "incumbent upon this Court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings" and prevent their exploitation. The court stressed that its time and resources must be preserved for genuine grievances that merit judicial consideration.
Consequently, the single-judge bench dismissed the contempt petition. To deter such practices, the court imposed costs of Rs 30,000 on the petitioner, Parkash Singh. The amount is to be paid to the respondents in equal shares of Rs 10,000 each within two weeks.
This ruling serves as a clear message from the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the judiciary will actively penalize litigants who waste the court's time with baseless and already-resolved pleas, thereby protecting the system from needless clutter.
