In a sharp observation that underscores concerns over judicial misuse and forum shopping, the Supreme Court of India on September 3, 2025, criticized the growing tendency of litigants approaching the apex court to seek early hearings in the Delhi High Court. The remark came during a hearing on a plea filed by Leena Paulose, wife of alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekar, who sought an expedited bail hearing in a ₹200 crore extortion case pending before the Delhi High Court.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra expressed displeasure over the practice, stating, “It is not acceptable. Just because of the proximity of the Supreme Court, everyone comes here and then seeks adjournment.” The court emphasized that such conduct undermines the procedural sanctity of subordinate courts and contributes to unnecessary docket pressure on the apex judiciary.
🧭 Case Background: Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Extortion Case
| Case Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Accused | Leena Paulose and Sukesh Chandrashekar |
| Allegation | ₹200 crore extortion from Ranbaxy promoters’ wives |
| Investigating Agencies | Delhi Police, Enforcement Directorate (ED) |
| Legal Provisions Invoked | MCOCA, PMLA, IPC, IT Act |
| Current Status | Bail plea pending before Delhi High Court |
| Supreme Court Hearing Date | September 3, 2025 |
Paulose’s counsel argued that despite the bail matter being listed daily in the Delhi High Court, it was not being heard, prompting the plea for intervention by the Supreme Court. The bench, however, declined to entertain the request and adjourned the matter.
🔍 Supreme Court’s Observations: A Warning Against Forum Shopping
The bench’s remarks reflect a broader concern over litigants bypassing procedural hierarchy and approaching the Supreme Court for relief that should be sought at the High Court level. The court noted that proximity to the apex court in Delhi should not be exploited to seek preferential treatment.
| Judicial Concern | Supreme Court’s Observation | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Forum Shopping | “Everyone comes here due to proximity” | Undermines judicial hierarchy |
| Procedural Sanctity | “Not acceptable to seek adjournment this way” | Encourages discipline in litigation |
| Docket Pressure | “Unnecessary burden on apex court” | Calls for responsible litigation |
| Respect for High Courts | “Matters should be heard where they belong” | Reinforces federal judicial structure |
The court’s stance is expected to influence future decisions on similar pleas and may prompt stricter scrutiny of petitions seeking expedited hearings.
📉 Legal Timeline: Sukesh Chandrashekar and Leena Paulose Case
| Year | Event Description | Legal Development |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | Arrested by Delhi Police in extortion case | ₹200 crore allegedly duped from Ranbaxy heirs |
| 2022 | ED files charges under PMLA | Money laundering probe initiated |
| 2023 | MCOCA invoked by Delhi Police | Organized crime angle added |
| 2024 | Bail plea filed in Delhi High Court | Matter listed but not heard |
| 2025 | Supreme Court approached for expeditious hearing | Court declines to intervene |
The case involves allegations of hawala transactions, shell companies, and high-profile victims, making it one of the most sensational financial crime cases in recent years.
🔥 Broader Implications for Judicial Discipline
Legal experts have welcomed the Supreme Court’s remarks, stating that they reinforce the importance of respecting judicial hierarchy and discourage tactical litigation.
| Expert Name | Role | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Meera Iyer | Constitutional Law Scholar | “The SC’s observation is a timely reminder of procedural discipline.” |
| Rajiv Bansal | Criminal Law Practitioner | “Forum shopping erodes the credibility of the judicial process.” |
| Dr. Rakesh Sinha | Legal Historian | “Proximity should never be a substitute for merit.” |
The issue also raises questions about the need for better case management and hearing schedules in High Courts to prevent unnecessary escalation to the Supreme Court.
📦 Forum Shopping in Indian Judiciary: A Growing Concern
| Forum Shopping Indicator | Description | Judicial Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic Proximity | Litigants prefer courts located in Delhi | Overburdens apex court |
| Strategic Litigation | Choosing forums perceived as favorable | Undermines impartiality |
| Adjournment Tactics | Seeking delays to manipulate hearing timelines | Affects justice delivery |
| Media Sensitivity | Filing in courts with high media visibility | Influences public perception |
The Supreme Court’s remarks may lead to policy-level discussions on curbing forum shopping and reinforcing judicial discipline across all levels.
📌 Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s firm stance on the plea seeking expeditious hearing in the Delhi High Court sends a clear message: proximity to the apex court cannot be a justification for bypassing procedural norms. As India’s judiciary grapples with rising caseloads and complex litigation strategies, the emphasis on respecting judicial hierarchy and discouraging forum shopping is both timely and necessary. The case of Leena Paulose and Sukesh Chandrashekar may continue to unfold, but the court’s observation will likely shape how similar pleas are treated in the future.
—
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court proceedings, legal commentary, and media reports as of September 4, 2025. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion.
