MOHAMMAD HIMAYUN (THROUGH ATTORNEY ABDUL GANI BHAT) V. NISHAT ARA & ORS CRM (M) No. 660/2025:

DATE: 08/12/2025

COURT: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

BENCH: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul

FACTS:

Abdul Gani Bhat, an 82-year-old attorney holder acting on behalf of his son, has been identified as a habitual litigator who frequently files vexatious, frivolous, and baseless petitions against High Court judges, subordinate court judges, registry officers, and government functionaries. His actions have been criticized for harassing judicial officers, abusing the legal system, and wasting court time amid an already overburdened judiciary. In previous cases, a coordinate bench of the court labeled him a "cancer for the judicial system" due to his persistent nuisance and harassment, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. one lakh. The court noted his depraved mindset, particularly in allegations against his own daughter-in-law, and suggested he might need psychiatric help to curb his abuse of legal processes. Despite repeated reprimands, warnings, and cost impositions, Bhat continues to file false claims and create courtroom disruptions, undermining the judicial system.

In the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Bhat seeks multiple reliefs, including framing a complaint against his daughter-in-law (respondent no. 1), transferring it for trial, initiating contempt proceedings against subordinate judges (respondents nos. 2 and 3) who handled her case against his son, and demanding explanations from them regarding alleged misconduct such as ridicule, imprisonment in the courtroom, and financial demands. He levels serious, indecent, and wild allegations against his daughter-in-law and the judges, including filthy remarks that the court struck out as scandalous and irrelevant. This petition mirrors earlier filings on the same cause of action, such as CRM(M) No. 427/2024 (dismissed for non-prosecution), a petition under Article 226 (dismissed with Rs. one lakh costs), and CRM(M) No. 450/2025 (also dismissed), all involving identical allegations without challenging any specific order but annexing applications filed before trial courts.

ISSUES:

The primary issues revolve around the maintainability of the petition under Section 528 BNSS, given its repetitive nature and identical allegations from prior dismissed cases; Bhat's locus standi as a non-qualified legal practitioner to argue on behalf of his son under the Advocates Act; the abuse of judicial process through vexatious filings that harass judges and waste court resources; and the need to deter such conduct to protect judicial integrity, efficiency, and public confidence in the justice system.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The court dismissed the petition as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. two lakhs on Abdul Gani Bhat, to be recovered within four weeks, with provisions for enforcement through land revenue if unpaid. It directed the Registrar Judicial to circulate the order, recover the costs, and place it before the Chief Justice for potential formation of a committee to frame rules against such filings, emphasizing the obligation to safeguard the judiciary from repetitive harassment.

The court's reasoning centers on Bhat's pattern of misconduct, which constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process by repeatedly filing meritless petitions on settled issues, thereby clogging court dockets and depriving genuine litigants of timely justice. Despite prior dismissals and cost impositions, Bhat persisted in re-litigating the same allegations against the same respondents, merely altering the nomenclature of reliefs, which amounts to forum-shopping and an assault on judicial efficiency. The court highlighted that Bhat's actions, including baseless attacks on judges in their official capacity, erode public confidence in the administration of justice and create an environment of harassment for judicial officers discharging their duties. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Kadekar (2017) and Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (2024), the court underscored that frivolous filings consume productive resources, prolong dead issues, and necessitate institutional deterrence through exemplary costs to prevent a culture of evasion over abidance. Bhat's failure to demonstrate locus standi as a qualified advocate further invalidated his petition, as he could not legally argue cases under the Advocates Act, rendering his filings an unchecked indulgence in undermining court authority.

Furthermore, the court reasoned that allowing such behaviour would represent a grave public failure, as it permits litigants to exploit the legal system for personal vendettas, wasting precious judicial time that could address deserving cases. The imposition of costs was framed not as discretionary but as a constitutional duty to insulate the judiciary from unwarranted attacks, ensuring access to justice remains orderly rather than chaotic. By striking out scandalous allegations and refusing to entertain them, the court protected the dignity of proceedings while sending a clear message against misuse. The directive to involve the Chief Justice for broader regulatory measures reflects the systemic threat posed by habitual litigators like Bhat, whose actions strike at the root of justice administration and necessitate firm remedial steps to prioritize genuine grievances over frivolous ones.

ANALYSIS:

This case exemplifies the judiciary's robust response to vexatious litigation, underscoring the courts' inherent powers to curb abuse of process under provisions like Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Abdul Gani Bhat's repeated filings, characterized by baseless allegations and harassment of judicial officers, highlight a systemic issue where habitual litigants exploit legal mechanisms for personal vendettas, thereby exacerbating judicial backlog. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs of Rs. two lakhs, while striking out scandalous remarks, reinforces precedents from the Supreme Court, such as Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (2017) and Pandurang Vithal Kevne (2024), which advocate for deterrence through financial penalties to preserve judicial efficiency. Bhat's lack of locus standi as a non-advocate further invalidates his actions, illustrating how unauthorized representation can undermine the Advocates Act and erode the sanctity of court proceedings. This ruling not only penalizes individual misconduct but also signals a zero-tolerance approach to forum-shopping and re-litigation of settled matters, protecting the administration of justice from frivolous encroachments.

Beyond the immediate dismissal, the case raises broader implications for access to justice and judicial integrity in an overburdened system. By directing the Registrar Judicial to escalate the matter to the Chief Justice for potential rule-making or committee formation, the court addresses the need for institutional safeguards against persistent abusers, potentially inspiring guidelines to filter vexatious petitions at the threshold. This proactive stance mitigates the risk of a "grave public failure" where unchecked litigation fosters a culture of evasion, depriving genuine litigants of timely redress. Moreover, the suggestion of psychiatric evaluation for Bhat points to a nuanced view of litigant behaviour, blending punitive measures with rehabilitative intent. Ultimately, the judgment serves as a deterrent, fostering public confidence by ensuring courts remain forums for legitimate grievances rather than platforms for harassment, while emphasizing the constitutional duty to maintain orderly access to justice amid rising caseloads.