The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rebuked litigant Dayashankar Pandey for bringing a miscarried foetus into the courtroom during a March 9 hearing before Justice Himanshu Joshi, terming the act “highly objectionable and improper” and contrary to the dignity of judicial proceedings.
While acknowledging the petitioner’s personal grief, the Court made it clear that justice must be delivered strictly on the basis of law and admissible evidence not emotional appeals or “theatrical conduct”. Pandey had sought directions for an impartial investigation into alleged financial irregularities exceeding ₹200 crore involving Maruti Suzuki India Limited, claiming he and his family faced attacks after exposing the issue, including one he linked to his wife’s miscarriage.
However, the Court found his claims vague and unsupported by evidence, dismissed the plea, and criticised his conduct. The incident has also reportedly prompted scrutiny over courtroom security, with action taken against personnel for lapses.
Court Upholds Dignity Amid Unusual Incident
The incident unfolded during a hearing on March 9, when the petitioner allegedly placed the foetus before the Bench in an attempt to highlight his personal tragedy. The High Court responded firmly, stating that such behaviour was not only “highly objectionable and improper” but also incompatible with the decorum expected within judicial spaces. The Bench underscored that courts are institutions governed by procedure, discipline, and respect, and cannot become platforms for emotional demonstrations aimed at influencing outcomes.
In its observations, the Court reiterated a key principle of the justice system: that decisions are based solely on legally admissible material and established law. “Justice is administered strictly in accordance with law,” the Bench noted, adding that emotional considerations however genuine cannot override due process. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s grief, indicating that it did not disregard the human dimension of the case, but drew a clear line between empathy and judicial reasoning.
The Bench also raised concerns about the manner in which the foetus was handled, pointing out that such biological material must be treated in accordance with the Biomedical Waste Management Rules, 2016. It warned that the act not only violated procedural norms but also had the potential to disturb the dignity and functioning of the courtroom. The remarks reflect a broader emphasis on maintaining institutional sanctity, particularly in spaces where sensitive and high-stakes matters are adjudicated.
Allegations, Claims and Court’s Findings on Lack of Evidence
Pandey’s petition centred on allegations of financial irregularities exceeding ₹200 crore, purportedly involving Maruti Suzuki India Limited. He approached the Court seeking multiple directions, including an impartial investigation, compensation for himself, and recovery of funds for government authorities. According to his claims, he became a target after exposing the alleged wrongdoing, leading to threats and violent attacks on his family.
Among the incidents cited in the petition was a car attack that Pandey alleged resulted in his wife’s miscarriage, as well as a separate fire attack that left his daughter severely injured. These claims formed the emotional core of his plea and were presented as evidence of retaliation against his whistleblowing efforts. However, the Court found that these allegations were not supported by any substantive material on record.
The Bench noted that the petition lacked basic evidentiary backing, including documents, complaints, or corroborative proof that could lend credibility to the claims. It described the plea as “vague” and insufficient to warrant judicial intervention, especially in a matter involving serious financial and criminal allegations. The absence of supporting evidence ultimately proved decisive in the Court’s decision to dismiss the case.
Further, the Court pointed to inconsistencies in Pandey’s legal approach. It observed that he had previously filed a plea seeking euthanasia, which he later replaced with demands for compensation and investigation. Such shifting positions, the Bench said, weakened the credibility of his claims and indicated a pattern of speculative litigation. It concluded that the repeated filing of petitions without cogent material amounted to misuse of the Court’s writ jurisdiction.
In its order, the High Court described the petitioner as engaging in “vexatious and speculative litigation,” suggesting that the case reflected an attempt to repeatedly agitate similar issues without following earlier directions or pursuing appropriate remedies. The strong language used by the Court highlights its concern over the potential misuse of judicial processes, which can strain institutional resources and delay justice for others.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This case presents a complex intersection of human distress and institutional responsibility. On one hand, the petitioner’s actions appear to stem from profound personal grief and a sense of injustice—emotions that deserve compassion and understanding. On the other hand, the courtroom is a space governed by rules that ensure fairness, consistency, and respect for all parties involved. The High Court’s response underscores the importance of maintaining this balance.
The incident also raises broader questions about access to justice and the support systems available to individuals who feel unheard or wronged. When people resort to extreme measures to draw attention to their plight, it may reflect not just individual choices but also gaps in awareness, legal guidance, or emotional support. Addressing these gaps is essential to prevent such situations while strengthening trust in institutions.
Also read: Kerala LPG Crisis: 40% Restaurants Shut As Fuel Shortage Pushes Industry To Brink
