Supreme Court Slams Repeated Plea: ‘How Dare You File This?’ – Murder Convict’s Bid to Delay Surrender Rejected

On June 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a sharp rebuke to a murder convict who had once again approached the Court seeking an extension of time to surrender, despite a prior order clearly addressing the same issue. The matter was heard by a vacation bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti, who expressed their strong disapproval of what they deemed a misuse of judicial process.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, filed a miscellaneous application requesting an additional three weeks to surrender. Counsel argued that the request was made in light of a pending petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the convict’s premature release, which is scheduled to be heard on July 10. However, the bench did not find the reasoning satisfactory or appropriate, given the existing judicial directions.

Justice Amanullah took a stern stance, questioning the propriety of the application during the Court’s vacation period. He referred to a previous order issued by a coordinate bench led by Justice AS Oka, which had already considered the petitioner’s request and granted three weeks’ time to surrender following the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on May 14. Justice Amanullah, visibly displeased, remarked, “How dare you file this?”—indicating the Court’s strong disapproval of repetitive litigation and disregard for judicial discipline.

The earlier bench had clearly stated that it found no fault in the Delhi High Court’s decision to reject the plea for continued furlough. Nevertheless, as a matter of concession, it had allowed three weeks for the petitioner to surrender, a period that was now being sought to be extended without any fresh legal ground.

Finding no merit in the fresh application, the current bench categorically rejected the plea, deeming it “absolutely uncalled for, unwarranted, and in need of strict judicial response.” The Court ordered that the petitioner must surrender by the end of the day and fixed the matter for further hearing on June 5 to determine if any additional orders were necessary in light of what it viewed as an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed a request by the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) to withdraw the petition, underlining the seriousness with which it viewed the repetitive filing and the attempt to circumvent previous orders.

This matter stems from the case titled Vinod @ Ganja v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), in which the petitioner has already served 14 years of actual imprisonment and a total of 16 years including remission. The Delhi High Court, while issuing notice on his petition for premature release, had categorically refused to stay his surrender, directing him to comply by May 20. Following this, the petitioner had initially approached the Supreme Court seeking relief, but the bench led by Justice Oka upheld the High Court’s decision while allowing limited time to surrender.

Despite this, the petitioner once again moved the apex court with the same prayer, resulting in the stern reaction and dismissal of the plea. The Supreme Court’s response signals a strong message against forum shopping and repetitive litigation, particularly in criminal matters where final orders have already been passed.

The next hearing is scheduled for June 5, where the Court will consider further directions in the matter.