Supreme Court Stays High Court's Adverse Observations Against Petitioner

Supreme Court pauses cost imposition on petitioner, Chain Singh Uikey, citing lack of opportunity for defense.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has granted a stay on certain adverse observations made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against Chain Singh Uikey, the petitioner in a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 65229 of 2025. The Supreme Court’s decision, dated November 24, 2025, comes in response to a grievance raised by Uikey regarding the imposition of costs without being afforded an opportunity to present his defense.

The bench, comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Prasanna B. Varale, heard arguments from Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, the petitioner’s counsel. The crux of the petitioner’s contention was that the High Court, in its judgment, had made adverse remarks and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on him, which could be recovered by the State from the Investigating Officer involved in the case. This decision was made without prior notice or opportunity for Uikey to contest the claims, leading to what the petitioner argued was a grave injustice.

The Supreme Court took note of the petitioner’s complaint, emphasizing that the lack of opportunity to be heard constitutes a serious procedural lapse. In response, the apex court issued a notice returnable by February 9, 2026, allowing the petitioner to serve notice through the Standing Counsel for the respondent/State. Until further orders, the Supreme Court has stayed the enforcement of paragraph 57(iii) of the High Court’s judgment, which related to the imposition of costs.

The case has sparked discussions about procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding these principles. Legal experts opine that the Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the importance of ensuring that all parties in a legal dispute are given a fair chance to present their case, particularly when financial penalties or adverse observations are involved.

The High Court’s initial judgment had intended to hold the Investigating Officer accountable for what it described as a misguided investigation, directing the recovery of litigation costs from the officer. However, the Supreme Court's stay indicates a need to reassess whether procedural justice was duly observed in reaching that decision.

The case will be closely watched as it progresses, with the next hearing scheduled for early February 2026. The outcome could have significant implications for how lower courts handle procedural matters and the imposition of costs in future cases.

Bottom Line:

Adverse observations made by High Court and imposition of costs without granting an opportunity to the petitioner can be stayed by the Supreme Court pending further orders.

Statutory provision(s): Special Leave Petition.

Chain Singh Uikey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2813727