According to reports, the petitioner created a disruption during the hearing and allegedly used inappropriate language against the Chief Justice inside the courtroom. The incident briefly interrupted the proceedings before security personnel stepped in to restore order.

The Bench took serious note of the petitioner's conduct, observing that such behaviour could not be tolerated inside the country's highest constitutional court. The judges emphasized that while every citizen has the right to seek justice and present arguments before the court, maintaining the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings is equally essential.

Following the disruption, the petitioner was taken into custody from the courtroom. The development drew the attention of lawyers and litigants present during the hearing, with proceedings resuming after order was restored.

The incident has sparked discussion within legal circles about courtroom discipline and the responsibility of litigants appearing before constitutional courts. Senior advocates have often maintained that disagreements with judicial observations or court orders must be expressed only through legal remedies and established judicial procedures rather than disruptive conduct.

The Supreme Court has consistently stressed that the administration of justice depends on maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings. Any attempt to obstruct hearings or engage in abusive behaviour inside a courtroom is treated seriously and may invite legal consequences.

While the petitioner was taken into custody, further legal proceedings regarding the incident are expected to follow in accordance with law. Details regarding any additional action or charges, if applicable, were not immediately available at the time of reporting.

MP High Court fines lawyer ₹50,000 for suppressing facts to get relief

The Jabalpur bench pulled up the advocate for hiding a previous dismissal order while seeking interim relief from the Indore bench in a teacher recruitment case.

Taking a stern view of professional misconduct, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Friday imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on an advocate for suppressing crucial facts to obtain a favorable order. The court observed that the counsel deliberately withheld information regarding a previously dismissed petition on the same subject matter to secure interim relief from a different bench.

Justice Vishal Dhagat, presiding over the matter, directed Advocate Dinesh Singh Chauhan to deposit the fine amount immediately with the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee. The court’s intervention came during the hearing of a cluster of petitions related to the primary teacher recruitment process.

Strategic concealment of orders

The matter came to light when the court was hearing arguments via video conferencing. During the proceedings, counsels appearing in related petitions pointed out a significant discrepancy. It was revealed that while the Jabalpur bench had already dismissed a petition on this specific issue on April 6, Advocate Chauhan moved a similar plea before the Indore bench.

By allegedly failing to mention the Jabalpur dismissal, the counsel managed to obtain an interim stay from the Indore bench on April 27. The court noted that such "forum shopping" or suppression of prior rulings undermines the judicial process and wastes the court's time.

Arguments dismissed by bench

Responding to the court’s observation, Advocate Dinesh Singh Chauhan argued that he was not the arguing counsel in the specific petitions that were dismissed earlier. He contended that since he wasn't the 'parokar' (advocate on record) for those dismissed cases, he could not be held responsible for "hiding" facts that were not part of his direct knowledge.

However, the court was not convinced. Justice Dhagat remarked that Chauhan had been appearing in several linked petitions involving the same recruitment issue through video conferencing. The bench noted that it was virtually impossible for a counsel deeply involved in the litigation cluster to be unaware of a major ruling passed just weeks prior.

Irregularities in appearance

The court also highlighted procedural lapses, noting that the advocate had been appearing in the matter without formally filing a ‘Vakalatnama’ (power of attorney) in certain instances. This lack of formal documentation, combined with the failure to disclose the April 6 order, was viewed as an attempt to bypass standard judicial transparency.

"The conduct of the counsel in not disclosing the earlier order passed by this court is unacceptable," the bench noted, emphasizing that advocates, as officers of the court, have a primary duty toward the truth.

Impact on recruitment litigation

The primary teacher recruitment in Madhya Pradesh has seen a wave of litigation over the past year. Legal experts suggest that this latest crackdown by the Jabalpur bench serves as a warning to litigants and lawyers who attempt to get conflicting orders from different benches (Jabalpur, Indore, and Gwalior) by withholding case histories.

The fine of ₹50,000 is intended to act as a deterrent. The High Court has cleared that any attempt to mislead the registry or the bench by suppressing previous dismissals will be met with similar financial penalties and potential disciplinary action.

What lies ahead

The court has now consolidated the records to ensure that the primary teacher recruitment cases are heard on merit without further procedural manipulation. The Secretary of the Legal Services Committee is expected to submit a report once the fine is deposited. For the petitioner's side, the interim relief obtained from the Indore bench now stands under a cloud of scrutiny following these observations by the principal bench.