Mumbai advocate faces inquiry for filing frivolous PIL against sitting judge

03-04-2023 : The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) has taken suo motu cognizance of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mumbai-based advocate Mursalin Shaikh against a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court. The PIL accused Justice Revati Mohite Dere of criminal prosecution. The BCMG held a meeting on March 27, 2023, where it condemned the provocative and frivolous PIL filed by Advocate Shaikh against the High Court judge. The Bar Council alleged that the advocate had filed the PIL with the intention to defame Justice Dere and sensationalize the matter. The BCMG termed Advocate Shaikh’s act as an attempt at cheap publicity and defaming the image of the judiciary.

Following this, the BCMG decided to initiate an inquiry and disciplinary action against Advocate Mursleen Shaikh. It constituted a three-member disciplinary committee under section 35 of the Advocate Act 1961 to examine the entire matter and make recommendations to the Bar Council. The council accused the advocate of tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary and seeking publicity through such actions.

This is not the first time that Advocate Mursleen Shaikh has come under the scanner. Last year, he filed a PIL in the Supreme Court against the appointment of Justice DY Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India (CJI). In the application against Justice Chandrachud, a letter from a person named Rashid Khan Pathan was cited, which made several allegations against the judge. Pathan had written a letter to President Draupadi Murmu accusing Justice Chandrachud of hearing a case in which his son was among the petitioner’s lawyers. However, during the hearing in the Supreme Court, the then Chief Justice UU Lalit dismissed the petition as misleading and expressed his displeasure towards Advocate Shaikh for making baseless allegations.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) later supported the SLP mentioned by Rashid Khan Pathan in his letter to the President, clarifying that during the hearing in the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioner was different from the counsel for the Bombay High Court. However, Advocate Shaikh’s actions in filing such a PIL against a sitting judge and the CJI have raised eyebrows and have resulted in disciplinary action being taken against him.