Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes ₹50,000 cost on Litigant for forum shopping and misuse of contempt jurisdiction

In a strong message against misuse of judicial process, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a litigant for engaging in forum shopping and filing a frivolous contempt petition in a civil matter. The Court held that the petition lacked any tenable basis and amounted to a gross abuse of the legal process.

The contempt plea, filed in Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha IAS and Others, alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Others, wherein the Apex Court recognized access to proper sanitation as a fundamental right under Article 21. The petitioner contended that the disconnection of her water supply amounted to a violation of this ruling.

However, Justice Sudeepti Sharma, presiding over the matter, held that the dispute was purely civil in nature and fell outside the scope of contempt jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner had been previously advised to pursue appropriate civil remedies but had willfully persisted in pressing the contempt petition without any legal merit.

“The petitioner, despite being specifically directed by this Court to avail appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law, has persisted in pressing this contempt petition without any tenable basis,” the Court observed.

Justice Sharma remarked that the petitioner’s actions amounted to a “frivolous and vexatious litigation spree,” evidently driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. She emphasized that such conduct constitutes a “gross abuse of the judicial process” and contributes to the growing backlog of cases.

The Court further warned against the growing tendency among litigants to indulge in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopt dilatory tactics. Such practices, the Court said, “undermine the very foundation of our legal system and clog the administration of justice.” Reliance was placed on Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, where the Supreme Court cautioned against unscrupulous litigants who rely on falsehoods and unethical conduct to obtain relief.

Justice Sharma noted that the instant petition exemplified such misuse, stating:
“The petitioner's conduct in instituting frivolous litigation has resulted in a gross misuse of the judicial process, thereby squandering the valuable time and resources of the Court.”

Stressing the need to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process and to prevent its pollution by unscrupulous litigants, the Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The amount is to be deposited with the treasury of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and shall be utilized for the construction or renovation of the Women’s Bar Room at the High Court.

The Court concluded by stating that such deterrent measures are essential to ensure that bona fide and timely claims are adjudicated without being impeded by vexatious litigation.