Court orders withdrawal and deletion of objection affidavit from registry website to safeguard judicial sanctity and protect Advocate General from media scrutiny
In a notable judgment delivered on February 3, 2026, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, ruled against the inclusion and public dissemination of objection affidavits containing severe allegations against constitutional functionaries. The judgment arose from the case of Sasmita Sahoo v. State of Odisha, where an affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.27 made personal aspersions against the Advocate General of Odisha.
The affidavit, filed on January 21, 2026, accused the Advocate General of impropriety due to his previous representation of petitioners in related writ petitions. The court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial purity and public trust, directed the withdrawal of the affidavit, ensuring its removal from the registry's website. Furthermore, Justice Satapathy issued a restraining order against both print and electronic media from publishing articles related to the affidavit's contents.
During the proceedings, the State, represented by Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate, and Ms. P. Rath, Senior Counsel for Opposite Party No.27, engaged in discussions concerning the affidavit's impropriety. The court noted that the affidavit was made public prematurely, subjecting the Advocate General to unwarranted media inquiries. Opposite Party No.27, through counsel, subsequently filed a memo to withdraw the affidavit, accompanied by an unconditional apology, which the court accepted, deprecating the initial action.
Justice Satapathy reiterated the significance of preserving the judiciary's credibility and the hallmark of justice, cautioning against frivolous litigation and scurrilous remarks that could erode public confidence. The court underscored that the Advocate General's appearance was at the court's request, with no merit-based arguments made, nullifying the necessity of such an affidavit.
The ruling serves as a reminder to litigants and legal representatives of the gravity and decorum required in judicial proceedings, safeguarding constitutional functionaries from baseless accusations. By restraining media coverage, the court aims to deter similar future conduct, ensuring the integrity and sanctity of judicial processes.
Bottom Line:
Filing objection affidavits with scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries during pending judicial proceedings is deprecated; courts can direct removal of such records and restrain media publication to maintain judicial sanctity and deter frivolous litigation.
Statutory provision(s): Judicial proceedings.
Sasmita Sahoo v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849594
