Supreme Court Dismisses Advocate’s Claim for Fees in ‘Saving’ Former CJI The apex Supreme Court on 12 March 2026 rejected a petition by Advocate Ashok Pandey seeking a payment of Rs 1 crore from the Union Government as fees for filing cases allegedly to protect former CJI Dipak Misra . The bench, comprising CJ Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi , termed the petition “misconceived” and upheld the earlier dismissal by the Allahabad High Court. Key Developments The Supreme Court bench dismissed Pandey’s petition for Rs 1 crore fees, calling it misconceived. The Court also rejected Pandey’s request for a certificate of appeal under Article 134A . The bench highlighted that Pandey had not incurred any expenses, noting his personal appearance and the modest Rs 2 lakh he claimed to have spent. The CJI questioned Pandey’s use of the honorific “Hon’ble” after making “nasty allegations” against the former judge. The Allahabad High Court, in High Court , had already dismissed the petition and denied a certificate of appeal. Important Facts 1. Petitioner’s Claim: Pandey argued that he filed several cases in the Supreme Court to prevent the impeachment of Justice Misra, seeking compensation for “social service”. He claimed expenses of about Rs 2 lakh , borrowed from his daughter. 2. Impeachment Background: In April 2018, Rajya Sabha members (71 from seven parties) moved a notice for impeachment of Justice Misra. The then Vice‑President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu rejected the notice, citing lack of merit. 3. Legal Procedure: Pandey’s writ petition challenged the rejection of his representation to the President dated 28 Feb 2024, seeking a directive to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to pay the claimed amount. UPSC Relevance The case illustrates several constitutional and institutional concepts that are frequently examined in the UPSC GS2: Polity syllabus: Judicial independence and the mechanisms for removal of judges (impeachment). The role of the President versus the executive ministries in legal matters. Procedural aspects of filing petitions, seeking certificates of appeal, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court . Interpretation of constitutional provisions like Article 134A . Way Forward / Analytical Take‑aways 1. Judicial Accountability: The dismissal reaffirms that claims of “social service” to the judiciary cannot be monetised without concrete evidence of incurred expenses. 2. Impeachment Process: The episode underscores the high threshold for impeaching a judge, involving both houses of Parliament and the President’s assent, a point aspirants should note for comparative analysis with other democracies. 3. Legal Remedies: Petitioners must demonstrate a substantial question of law to obtain a certificate of appeal under Article 134A; mere procedural dissatisfaction is insufficient. 4. Institutional Integrity: The bench’s rebuke of Pandey’s honorific usage reflects the Court’s sensitivity to maintaining the dignity of the judiciary while scrutinising frivolous claims. Overall, the judgment reinforces the principle that the judiciary’s independence and financial integrity are protected against opportunistic litigation, a theme central to constitutional governance.