The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance against legal practitioner Mukut Nath Verma, issuing a direct order to the Delhi Police Commissioner to ensure the lawyer’s appearance before the court. The directive comes in the wake of Verma’s alleged failure to comply with previous orders regarding “scandalous and frivolous” complaints he filed against Supreme Court judges and members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election committee.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has set a deadline of February 23 for the police to produce Verma, authorizing the use of “lawful coercive measures” to secure his presence.
Police Unable to Trace Lawyer
During the hearing on Friday, the bench was informed by SCBA President Vikas Singh and senior advocate Vijay Hansaria—who heads the SCBA election panel—that law enforcement agencies had so far failed to execute bailable warrants issued against Verma. The police report submitted to the court stated that the lawyer could not be traced.
Taking strong exception to the police’s inability to serve the warrants, the court escalated the matter to the level of the Delhi Police Commissioner.
The controversy stems from a complaint Verma lodged at the Tilak Marg police station, which the apex court previously characterized as “scandalous and frivolous.” The allegations targeted the very election committee appointed by the Supreme Court to conduct the SCBA polls, as well as judges of the top court.
The standoff regarding Verma’s appearance has persisted since last year. The court noted that on May 29, 2025, Verma had appeared via video conferencing despite specific instructions. At that time, the bench had insisted on his physical presence and warned of coercive steps if he failed to comply.
Push for SCBA Reforms
The development occurred during the hearing of a petition filed by the SCBA in 2023, which seeks comprehensive reforms within the bar body. While dealing with the issue of the errant lawyer, the bench also progressed discussions on structural changes to the association.
The court has directed SCBA Secretary Pragya Baghel to collate various suggestions for reform into a tabular format. These inputs include recommendations from the bar body, retired Supreme Court judge Justice L.N. Rao, and senior advocate Vijay Hansaria.
Tenure Extension and Voter Purification
Key reform proposals were actively discussed during the proceedings:
- Two-Year Tenure: Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria suggested extending the tenure of elected SCBA representatives from the current one-year term to two years. This would align the SCBA’s structure with that of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAoRA).
- Voter Eligibility: SCBA President Vikas Singh emphasized the need to “weed out non-genuine members” from the voter list. He proposed that the physical appearance of lawyers before Supreme Court benches should be the primary criterion for determining voting eligibility. Highlighting the gravity of the issue, Singh cited an instance where an individual allegedly running a marriage bureau had managed to register as an SCBA member eligible to vote.
The bench stated it would consider the tabulated suggestions and pass appropriate directions on the next date of hearing, alongside the matter regarding lawyer Mukut Nath Verma.
