Court condemns Advocate Tiwari’s PIL, criticizes involvement as litigant.
Last Updated on January 27, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
Condemning a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner’s lawyer and advocate Vishal Tiwari, who sought a review of dowry and domestic violence laws allegedly used to harass a husband and his family, the court called out the advocate for his involvement as a judge in the case.
The PIL was filed in the wake of the suicide of a man named Atul Subhash allegedly due to harassment by his wife through matrimonial cases. The matter was heard by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. He dismissed the PIL on the ground that laws are made by Parliament and the court cannot interfere with legislative wisdom. The moment Justice Nagarathna looked at the files to pass the order, she realized that the petition had been filed by the advocate himself.
Therefore, she noted, defense attorneys must avoid filing such motions. She said, “You know, you’re an advocate. He never gets into an argument. Fonts, we can save the cost. Tiwari replied that such false cases affect legal practice. When asked by Justice Sharma how this affects his practice, Tiwari said his practice is not affected but still it is a “burden” on the judiciary when these cases are filed. However, the reaction did not sit well with Justice Sharma who observed, “There is no burden.
We have sworn, we must decide cases according to the law. Don’t say it all. “Dismissing a public interest litigation filed by petitioner’s lawyer and advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking a review of domestic violence laws allegedly used to harass the husband and his family, the court called on the champion advocate for stepping in as a judge himself. The petition was filed in the wake of the suicide of a man named Atul Subhash, allegedly due to harassment by his wife through matrimonial cases.
The matter was heard by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. He refused to drink because laws are made by Parliament and the court cannot interfere with legislative wisdom. The moment Justice Nagarathn saw the files to pass the order, she realized that the petition had been filed by the defense attorney himself. She noted that defense attorneys must avoid these suggestions. She said, “You know, you’re a lawyer. He never gets into an argument. Fonts, we can save the cost.
Tiwari replied that such false cases affect legal practice. When Justice Sharma questioned how this was affecting his practice, Tiwari said his practice was not affected, but it was still a “burden” on the judiciary to file these cases. However, the reaction did not sit well with Judge Sharmau, who remarked: “There is no burden. We have sworn, we must decide cases according to law. Don’t say it all. “
