Orissa High Court: While hearing an interim application in a pending writ petition, a Single Judge Bench of Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., examined the propriety of an objection affidavit filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’) containing serious allegations against the Advocate General, a constitutional functionary. The Court held that the affidavit was wholly unwarranted, deprecated its public circulation while the matter was sub judice, and directed that it be withdrawn and not treated as part of the record. The Court further restrained both print and electronic media from publishing any article regarding its contents and issued a word of caution to prevent recurrence, stressing that such measures were essential to uphold the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.
Background:
The matter arose after the final hearing in the writ petition had concluded and judgment was reserved. Thereafter, the State filed an interim application seeking directions to withdraw an objection affidavit dated 21-01-2026, filed in a connected writ petition, and to tender an unconditional apology for the allegations made therein against the Advocate General.
It was contended on behalf of the State that during the course of hearings on different dates, this Court, taking into account the complexity of the issues involved, had requested the Advocate General to appear and assist the Court. It was submitted that despite such request, and despite the fact that the Advocate General never argued the matter on merits, serious allegations and personal aspersions were made in the objection affidavit.
It was further contended that while the matter was sub judice, the objection affidavit was made public, causing unnecessary harassment to the Advocate General, including queries from media persons. It was also submitted that the affidavit was never brought to the notice of the Court during the hearing and that there was no necessity to file such an affidavit.
Upon intervention by several Senior Counsels, a request was made for amicable settlement. A memo was thereafter filed seeking withdrawal of the objection affidavit, along with an affidavit tendering unconditional apology for filing the same and for causing undue hardship.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the objection affidavit dated 21-01-2026 was filed even though the Advocate General never argued the matter made any submission on merits supporting either side. The Court observed that there was no occasion to file such an objection affidavit and that the Senior Counsel appearing should have guided her client properly, instead of creating all this mud slagging.
The Court emphasised that making the objection affidavit public during pendency of the writ petition caused unnecessary harassment to the Advocate General. The Court observed the trust of the people upon this institution should not be believed by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts’ orders. Reiterating that purity is the hallmark of justice and that justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people, the Court deprecated the conduct complained of.
Taking into account the memo and the affidavit tendering unconditional apology, the Court permitted withdrawal of the objection affidavit and directed that it shall not be treated as part of the record and shall be deleted from the website of the Registry. The Court further restrained both print and electronic media from publishing any article of any nature with regard to the contents of the objection affidavit.
The Court clarified that these directions were issued to maintain the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings and to deter truant litigants from filing frivolous affidavits before the Court. A word of caution was also issued to prevent such conduct in future. Accordingly, the interim application was disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
[Sasmita Sahoo v. State of Orissa, W.P.(C) No. 34769 of 2022, decided on 03-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the State: B. Routray, Sr. Advocate with J. Biswal, Advocate
For the Intervenor: Saswat Das, AGA, P. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with S. Prusty, Advocate for Intervenor