A major commotion erupted at the Supreme Court on Friday after a petitioner behaved in an extremely unruly manner during a case hearing, hurling abusive language at the judges on the bench. The incident took place while a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a petition challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court.
The petitioner, who appeared in person to argue his case, dispensed with courtroom decorum from the outset, addressing the judges in an aggressive and unusual tone. Referring to the bench, he arrogantly declared, “Mister judicial servant… I order you to register an FIR against the Lucknow ACP immediately.”
Taken aback by the remark, Justice Viswanathan questioned the petitioner directly, asking, “Are you ordering us? Are you passing orders to the court itself?” Far from showing any remorse, the petitioner responded with equal defiance, curtly stating that he had said all he needed to and that everything was already on record.
The situation escalated rapidly thereafter. The visibly agitated petitioner hurled a bundle of case documents toward the judges’ dais and began using highly abusive language inside the courtroom. According to a report by Live Law, he went further and directed abusive remarks even at Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who was not part of the bench hearing the case, leaving those present in the courtroom shocked.
As the situation threatened to spiral out of control, Supreme Court security personnel on duty intervened swiftly. The petitioner, who refused to leave the courtroom voluntarily, was forcibly restrained and escorted out by security staff, allowing order to be restored inside the courtroom.
Despite witnessing the entire episode firsthand, Justice Viswanathan and Justice Aradhe remained composed throughout, displaying notable restraint and continuing with the remaining case hearings without further disruption. Meanwhile, the full identity of the petitioner and details of the legal action likely to be initiated against him for contempt of court are yet to be made public.