Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking directions against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other respondent authorities, namely, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/Special Task Force (STF) and the Union of India, for the removal of an alleged illegal and unauthorized construction at a property, Mini Pushkarna, J., imposed costs of ₹50,000 jointly on the petitioner and her counsel after it was revealed that the writ petition had not been signed by the petitioner herself, and that the complaint preceding the petition had been made using the contact details of the counsel, who had effectively impersonated the litigant.
Upon the matter being heard, serious procedural and ethical deficiencies came to light, prompting the Court to take a critical view of the circumstances under which the petition was filed. Counsel for the DDA/STF brought to the Court’s attention that the writ petition had not been signed by the petitioner herself, but only by the Counsel. Upon further scrutiny it was revealed that the mobile number and email ID provided in the complaint to the STF were not those of the petitioner, but of her counsel. The complaint’s contact details were identical to those listed in the petition under the counsel’s information, namely, the phone number and the email ID. The Court found that these particulars matched those in the alleged complaint before the STF, undermining the credibility of the petition and raising doubts about its bona fides.
The DDA/STF also drew the Court’s attention to an earlier case, where the Division Bench had cautioned against the abuse of public interest litigations related to unauthorized constructions. That order highlighted that such petitions were increasingly being used as strategic tools by unscrupulous litigants and, in some instances, in connivance with MCD officials to extort money. It was noted in that judgment that when courts act against unauthorized construction, owners perceive the system as “rigged,” and when courts do not act, such construction is assumed to be legally sanctified. The Commissioner, MCD, had assured the Division Bench in that case that appropriate action would be taken against unauthorized constructions and against erring officials. The petition in that earlier matter was ultimately withdrawn unconditionally on 14-05-2024.
In the present matter, Counsel for MCD submitted that the unauthorized construction of the property in question had already been “booked”, and appropriate proceedings were underway. While acknowledging this procedural progress, the Court was compelled to deal with the more serious concern regarding the abuse of judicial process by the petitioner and her advocate.
The Court observed that filing a writ petition without the litigant’s signature and with the contact information of the advocate, masquerading as that of the complainant, constituted a blatant misuse of the legal process. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2599, which emphasized that courts must not allow themselves to become instruments of fraud. It reiterated that any petition containing misleading or inaccurate statements to serve as an ulterior motive amount to an abuse of court process. The Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh (supra) had also strongly condemned the involvement of advocates in such ill-motivated litigation, stressing the high standards of ethical responsibility expected from members of the Bar, who are integral to the administration of justice.
The Court expressed concern about the erosion of professional ethics among legal practitioners. The Court noted that public trust in the judiciary is deeply intertwined with the integrity of the legal profession, and advocates, as officers of the Court, must not engage in conduct that undermines this trust. The act of filing petitions without proper client authentication and using courts for collateral purposes was deemed unacceptable and damaging to the judicial system.
In view of the above, the writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹50,000, to be paid jointly by the petitioner and her Counsel.
[Madhu Gupta v. MCD, W.P.(C) 8214/2025, decided on 30-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Farhad Alam, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Abhinav Singh, Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, AE, MCD Mr. Prabhsahay Kaur, SC, DDA with Mr. Kavya Shukla, Ms. Harshita Rai