📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Kamlesh.legalaid
National
Delhi High Court rebukes lawyer for filing baseless petition on PG debris claim
✍️ India Today
🗓 14 Sep 2026, 01:01 PM
👁 6
The Delhi High Court scolded a lawyer for submitting a petition that alleged people were trapped in debris at a PG site, deeming the claim unsubstantiated.
The Delhi High Court on Monday issued a sharp reprimand to a senior advocate who had filed a petition alleging that individuals were trapped in debris at a PG construction site. The court observed that the petition was based on unverified information and warned against filing frivolous pleas that waste judicial time.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the basis of the claim, noting that no police report, medical record, or on‑site verification had been presented. The judge emphasized that courts rely on factual evidence and that speculative assertions cannot form the foundation of a petition.
The lawyer, who declined to comment, had cited media reports suggesting that workers might be stuck under the rubble. The bench, however, found no corroborating evidence and described the filing as an attempt to create a sensational narrative without merit.
The court’s admonition serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that petitions must be grounded in concrete facts, especially in matters that could cause public alarm. The bench also directed the lawyer to withdraw the petition and refrain from similar actions in the future.
During the hearing, the bench questioned the basis of the claim, noting that no police report, medical record, or on‑site verification had been presented. The judge emphasized that courts rely on factual evidence and that speculative assertions cannot form the foundation of a petition.
The lawyer, who declined to comment, had cited media reports suggesting that workers might be stuck under the rubble. The bench, however, found no corroborating evidence and described the filing as an attempt to create a sensational narrative without merit.
The court’s admonition serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that petitions must be grounded in concrete facts, especially in matters that could cause public alarm. The bench also directed the lawyer to withdraw the petition and refrain from similar actions in the future.