He wanted a 'neutral' judge by caste. The Supreme Court fined him ₹50,000.

One Judge, One Caste, One Mischievous Application

Lokendra Gurjar wanted a judge who was neither OBC nor general category. He was fighting a case about reservation in public service in Madhya Pradesh. So he walked into the High Court at Jabalpur and asked for a "special neutral bench" — one whose members belonged to no caste category at all. The High Court said no. The Supreme Court said something sharper: pay Rs. 50,000 for wasting everyone's time.

The stakes were simple. Not about reservation policy. Not about the rights of backward classes. About whether a litigant gets to pick judges by their caste identity. The Supreme Court killed that idea in two paragraphs.

The application that went too far

Gurjar had filed Writ Petition No. 20293/2019 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The subject: enhancement of reservation in public service. Standard fare for a constitutional court. But somewhere along the line, Gurjar filed Interlocutory Application No. 1873/2023. The prayer was unusual.

He asked the High Court to constitute a bench where the judges belonged neither to the OBC category nor to the unreserved category. A bench of judges who were, in his framing, "neutral" — meaning outside the caste binary that the reservation debate itself operates within.

The High Court rejected the IA on 20 March 2023. No detailed reasoning is recorded in the Supreme Court judgment. But the rejection was swift.

Gurjar didn't let it go. He filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court of India. He wanted the Supreme Court to reverse the High Court's order and direct the constitution of that special bench.

What the Supreme Court saw

Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal took up the SLP on 17 July 2023. The judgment is short — two paragraphs. But the language is unmistakable.

The Court called the application "mischievous." Not "misconceived." Not "premature." Mischievous — a word that carries intent. A word that suggests the litigant knew what he was doing.

The Bench observed that the only infirmity in the High Court's order was that it did not impose heavy costs on the litigant. The High Court let him off. The Supreme Court would not.

THE PLAY: If a litigant asks for a bench based on the caste identity of judges — whether OBC, SC, ST, or general — the High Court must impose exemplary costs immediately. Do not leave it for the Supreme Court.

The order that sent a signal

The operative order is crisp:

"This mis-conceived Special Leave Petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner. The cost amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one month from today. A report on payment of cost be furnished soon after the cost is deposited."

Rs. 50,000. One month. Deposit with the Legal Services Committee. A report to follow.

That is not a symbolic cost. For an individual litigant in a public interest matter, that is real money. The Court wanted it felt.

The doctrine that mattered — and it's not what you think

There is no elaborate ratio here. No parsing of precedent. No citation of earlier cases. The precedent registry in this judgment is empty. The Court did not need to cite a single case to say what it said.

The ratio is this: an application seeking constitution of a bench based on the caste identity of judges — in a reservation-related matter or otherwise — is mischievous and deserving of exemplary costs.

Why? Because the independence of the judiciary rests on the proposition that judges decide cases based on law and facts, not on their personal identity. Asking for a judge who is "neutral" by caste implies that judges who belong to a caste category cannot be neutral. That is an attack on the institution itself.

The Court did not say it in so many words. But the implication is clear. If you question a judge's ability to be impartial based on his or her caste, you are not making a legal argument. You are making a personal insinuation. And the Court will not entertain it.

Why this matters in practice

Three things for advocates, CFOs, and founders to take from this.

First, for advocates: Do not file applications that ask for bench constitution based on the identity of judges. Not caste. Not religion. Not gender. Not region. The Supreme Court has now made clear that such applications are not just legally untenable — they are sanctionable. You risk costs. You risk professional embarrassment. And you risk the Court's ire.

Second, for CFOs and founders: If you are involved in litigation — especially public interest or constitutional litigation — understand that the Court will not tolerate attempts to game the bench. The idea that you can ask for a judge who is "neutral" by some demographic metric is dead. The Court sees it as mischief. And mischief costs money.

Third, for High Courts: The obiter in this judgment is a signal. The Supreme Court said the only infirmity in the High Court's order was that it did not impose heavy costs. That means High Courts should now proactively impose costs when such applications are filed. Do not wait for the Supreme Court to do it. Do it yourself.

The bottom line

Lokendra Gurjar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh is a two-paragraph judgment that says more than many hundred-page judgments do. It says that the caste of a judge is irrelevant to the judge's ability to decide a case. It says that asking for a judge based on caste is not a legal right — it is an abuse of process. And it says that the Court will make you pay for it.

Rs. 50,000. One month. No appeal.