The Delhi High Court has imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh on a man claiming to be the general secretary of a residents’ welfare association (RWA), after finding that he misused the judicial process to allegedly extort money from property owners. In a strongly worded order, the court described the facts of the case as “shocking and alarming,” and also referred the conduct of his lawyer to the Bar Council of Delhi for scrutiny.
Misuse of Petitions to Extort Money
The court was hearing a contempt petition against Anil Lodhi, who identified himself as the general secretary of the Azad Market RWA. Lodhi had filed several cases alleging unauthorized construction on Roshanara Road and Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan, as well as misuse of utilities. However, during the proceedings, it emerged that Lodhi was allegedly threatening property owners with legal action and demanding money in exchange for withdrawing or withholding petitions.
Data Protection and DPDP Act Readiness: Hundreds of Senior Leaders Sign Up for CDPO Program
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while delivering the order, said:
“A proceeding before a court is a solemn process for furthering the cause of justice, and not for aiding unlawful objectives of certain individuals. On the one hand, the court has to deal with unauthorized constructions strictly with an iron hand. At the same time, it has to ensure that the process is not misused for extortion.”
The court held that Lodhi, along with his counsel, was using petitions under the guise of public interest to pursue “oblique motives,” amounting to impersonation and abuse of judicial process.
Bar Council to Examine Lawyer’s Conduct
Lodhi was represented by advocate Babu Lal Gupta. Both Lodhi and Gupta were also operating an unregistered NGO named Green Gold Earth of World. The court noted that the NGO was being used as a front for filing multiple petitions despite lacking legal registration, raising further concerns of misrepresentation.
Given Gupta’s role, the High Court directed the Bar Council of Delhi to assess whether his conduct violated professional ethics and statutory obligations under the Advocates Act. The court emphasized that such practices undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings and must be dealt with firmly.
The matter serves as a rare instance where both a litigant and his legal counsel have been subjected to strong judicial censure for misusing court processes for personal gain.