'Scurrilous Remarks Against Constitutional Functionary': Orissa High Court Criticizes DSP For Casting Aspersions On Advocate General

In an unusual development, the Orissa High Court has criticized an officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for casting aspersions on the professional ethics of the Advocate General for the State. The Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy went a step ahead in restraining media from reporting the contents of the affidavit through which the DSP had made certain “scurrilous” allegations against the top law officer of the State. It thus remarked –“The trust of the people upon this institution should not be believed by encouraging wild litigants to make scurrilous remarks against constitutional functionaries in defiance of the Courts' orders. Purity is the hallmark of justice and justice is deeply rooted in the confidence of the people.”The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions relating to promotion of police officers. On 13.01.2026, the Court had requested the appearance of the Advocate General Pitambar Acharya in the case as certain important and complex questions of law were involved. Pursuant to such request, the Advocate General had appeared on 15.01.2026 along with an Additional Government Advocate (AGA) in the matter. After hearing the parties, the Court had posted the matter to 29.01.2026 for final hearing.Subsequent to such appearance, an opposite party in a connected writ petition, who is currently working as a DSP, Special Crime Unit, Commissionerate Police, Bhubaneswar, filed an affidavit objecting to the appearance of the Advocate General in the case. The ground for such objection was that before becoming the Advocate General, Senior Advocate Acharya had appeared for the petitioners' side as lead counsel. After such objection affidavit was filed on 21.01.2026, the Advocate General expressed his intention to recuse from the case. An AGA appeared in the next date of hearing, i.e. 29.01.2026, instead of the Advocate General. The Court heard his submissions on behalf of the State on merits and accordingly, put a quietus to the hearing by reserving the judgment.The State filed an Interim Application (IA) seeking urgent listing of the case opposing the scandalous allegations levelled in the affidavit filed by the said opposite party against the Advocate General. Therefore, though it was not in the original cause list, the case was taken up for consideration on the basis of a special listing. The AGA informed the Court that the opposite party not only filed the affidavit in an unwarranted manner but also circulated the same in the media for which the Advocate General was posed unnecessary questions by the representatives from the media through WhatsApp. It was vehemently contended that the opposite party erred in filing the affidavit and publicising the same especially when the Advocate General had merely appeared on the request of the Court and did not even argue on the merits.Upon a heated exchange of words and pursuant to the intervention of a number of senior members of the Bar, Senior Counsel Pami Rath, representing the opposite party, filed a memo to withdraw the affidavit and to discard it from the case records. The said opposite party also filed another affidavit seeking unconditional apology from the Court as well as the Advocate General.The Court accepted the withdrawal memo and directed the Registry to omit the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026 filed by the opposite party, which shall not be treated as part of the record henceforth. Taking into account the gravity of the case, the Court also directed –“However, this Court taking into account the stand taken in the I.A. that learned Advocate General is being put to unnecessary questions by the Media people with regard to contents of the affidavit dated 21.01.2026, restrain both the Print and Electronic Media from publishing any article of any nature with regard to the stand taken in the objection affidavit dated 21.01.2026.”Justice Satapathy clarified that the appearance of the Advocate General was preceded by a request from the Court requiring the same and he never argued on the merits. The Judge also deprecated the act of the opposite party in the following words –“Before parting with the I.A., this Court deprecates the action of Opp. Party No.27, in filing such an objection affidavit on 21.01.2026, and making it public and thereby causing unnecessary harassment to learned Advocate General, even though he is a government employee and working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Crime Unit, Commissionerate Police, Bhubaneswar. This Court also is inclined to issue a word of caution to Opp. Party No.27, from committing such mistake in future…it is the view of this Court there was no occasion to file such an objection affidavit by Opp. Party No.27 on 21.01.2026 through his counsel and learned Sr. Counsel appearing for O.P. No.27 should have guided her client properly, instead of creating all these mud slagging.”Accordingly, the IA was disposed of.Case Title: Sasmita Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.Case...

'Scurrilous Remarks Against Constitutional Functionary': Orissa High Court Criticizes DSP For Casting Aspersions On Advocate General

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags