Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 2

In a courtroom spectacle that could rival a sitcom script, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found itself embroiled in an “otherworldly” legal escapade when a case filed against the State of Punjab took an unexpected turn after it was discovered that the petitioner had already embarked on his “celestial journey”.

“We would not want to inadvertently summon anymore ghostly clients or find ourselves entangled in a legal mess of supernatural proportions,” the Bench asserted. “Trust, the courtroom can still be a wild enough place without summoning spirits from beyond the grave”.

Capturing both the gravity of the law and the peculiarity of the situation, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul began the judgment with a nod to the bizarre circumstances: “The counsel for the petitioner has managed to stir up quite the legal potpourri by filing the instant petition on behalf of the petitioner, almost a month after his celestial departure. A feat that would make even Houdini raise an eyebrow!”

Typically, a bastion of solemnity, the courtroom proceedings were injected with a dose of levity as the State counsel presented the petitioner’s death certificate. “Seemingly, the counsel for the petitioner filed a petition on behalf of his departed client, complete with a posthumous power of attorney, bearing a signature from beyond the grave,” Justice Kaul asserted.

In the judgment laced with wit and humour, Justice Kaul observed it was if the petitioner was orchestrating the ultimate legal prank from beyond the grave. “And if that weren’t enough to raise a courtroom chuckle, behold! An affidavit bearing the signature of none other than the departed petitioner,” the Bench observed.

Justice Kaul asserted undoubtedly the proceedings injected “some much-needed entertainment into the otherwise dull courtroom proceedings”. The assertion came as the Bench added it would like to warn the petitioner’s counsel to exercise “a tad more caution in his future legal escapades”.

“It is imperative for this court to issue an explicit warning. Therefore, let it be clear: counsel for the petitioner should take this warning seriously and avoid getting involved in such ‘otherworldly activities’ in the future, lest he becomes entangled in a complex situation beyond the ordinary. Besides, considering the counsel for the petitioner’s relative inexperience in the legal profession, this Court would not want to see him squander his promising career on such, shall we say, otherworldly endeavourshellip;,” Justice Kaul observed.

Taking into consideration the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the counsel, Justice Kaul allowed the petition to be withdrawn.