It’s unacceptable to abuse the authorized course of inappropriately

It is unacceptable that Surya Sunilkumar, a student at the Ramaiah Institute of Legal Studies, should take undue advantage of the legal process

Vijay Madanlala Choudary & Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.


On September 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ordered a ruling on the abuse of legal process. The word trial refers to the procedures and proceedings of a civil or criminal claim. If an individual engages the legal process or process in a malicious, accidental, or inappropriate manner, it becomes an abuse of process. The court has the power to impose a fine or a minimal penalty for such acts.

Facts of the case

The petitioner in the case was given a 2 month bail because the petitioner’s mother was ill. A request for an extension of the provisional bail was later made, stating that the petitioner’s mother had died and that he was about to perform rituals, and it was also stated that his wife was ill. Therefore, the petitioner was granted a one month extension order. In the above order it was clearly stated that no further application for an extension can be submitted. However, the petitioner resubmitted an application for an extension stating that he had epididymitis and needed adequate medical care.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat passed the bench based on the following observations:

  1. Repeated filing of requests constitutes an abuse of the legal process. Even after it was clearly stated in the previous order that the request for extension could not be submitted, the petitioner asked for an extension stating that he had an illness and that it is not safe for him to stay in prison during a pandemic.
  2. The Court has decided to impose a penalty on the petitioner for abuse of court proceedings. An exemplary price of Rs. 25,000 was imposed.
  3. It was indicated that adequate medical care would be provided taking into account the petitioner’s medical conditions.
    As a result, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the request for a further extension of the bail.

Case analysis

• The abuse of legal process is considered a deliberate tort. If a person has attempted to obstruct justice or to despise the order issued by the court, that person has allegedly committed an abuse of the legal process.
• Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:
Avoidance of the Inherent Powers of the High Court. Nothing in this Code is intended to limit or impair the inherent powers of the High Court to make such arrangements as are necessary to enforce an order under this Code or to abuse the proceedings of a court prevent or otherwise secure the ends of justice. “This concept has been applied in several cases, some of which are similar to M / S.Rahul Foundations Private … v Ratanlal, SK Bhalla & Ors. V State of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. And VG Row v State of Madras on September 14, 1950. In In all of these cases the Court has found that the elements of abuse of power are the presence of a malicious purpose and an act which is inappropriate in the regular pursuit of the trial in court.
• An abuse of process was observed in this case, as the repeated filing of petitions is a burden on the court and also the intent of the petitioner was inappropriate.


Therefore, in this case, the Supreme Court did not take into account the petition submitted on the grounds of the petitioner’s lawyer. The court rejected the petitioner’s objection, who made several attempts to extend the temporary deposit granted to him for necessary purposes. The court found that the petitioner was attempting to improperly exploit the court’s indulgence when the petitioner tried to escape his sentence.

Comments are closed.