Blog

Case Title: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024

Order on: MAY 20, 2024

Coram: MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

Facts
The case W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024 involves a petitioner, represented by Mr. Karan Pal Singh, Advocate, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, including the ED and the CBI. The petitioner sought waiver of costs amounting to Rs. 75,000, which had been imposed by the court in a previous judgment dated April 22, 2024. The court had originally imposed the costs because the contentions in the petition were found to be incorrect and not based on social legal grounds. However, in the present application, the petitioner presented an unconditional apology and stated that he had come to understand the judicial system and laws of the land better. The petitioner also highlighted his financial incapacity as a student from a lower-middle-class background who is fully dependent on his parents and unable to bear the imposed costs. Therefore, after considering the petitioner’s acknowledgment of his mistake, apology, and his financial situation, the court decided to waive the costs. However, the court directed him to include copies of the previous judgement and the current order if he further files any cases in the future.
Issues
Whether the fine of Rs. 75,000 imposed on the petitioner should be waived given his financial condition and unconditional apology.
Whether the petitioner’s acknowledgement of his mistakes and apology justify waiving the fine.
Whether the petitioner’s financial status as a student belonging from a lower middle-class background and dependency over his parents should be considered to decide the waive of the fine.
Whether a directive should be issued requiring the petitioner to attach both the copies of the previous judgement and the current order in any future legal proceedings by him.
Legal Provision
Section 151 of CPC: It states about the inherent power of the Court to make orders for justice or to prevent abuse of process.
Contentions of the Appellant
The student, who is the appellant in this case, asked the court to cancel the Rs. 75,000 fine imposed on him in an earlier decision. He apologized unconditionally for his previous actions and admitted he had made mistakes. The student explained that he now understands the legal system better and has learned his lesson. He also highlighted his financial situation, stating that he is a student with no income, entirely dependent on his parents, and unable to afford the fine due to his lower-middle-class background.
Contentions of the Respondents
The contentions of the respondents i.e., the ED and the CBI under this judgment is not explicitly detailed. However, from the context, it can be inferred that the respondents, representing the government and other authorities, likely maintained that the original fine was justified because the student’s petition contained incorrect and legally unsound arguments. The fine was imposed to correct his approach and discourage frivolous legal actions. The respondents would have emphasized the importance of adhering to factual and legal accuracy in court filings.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Hon’ble Court recognized that the student had made incorrect and legally unsound arguments in his original petition, which warranted him a fine of Rs. 75,000. However, upon reviewing the student’s apology and his improved understanding of the legal system, the court acknowledged his genuine remorse. Considering his financial situation as a dependent student from a lower middle-class background, the court decided to waive the fine. Further, the court emphasized that the student must include copies of the previous judgement and the current order in any future legal actions he might take.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta