AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
The petitioner has filed the present petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 1 to postpone its H.P. Subordinate Allied
Services (Main) Examination-2019 at Shimla, Mandi and Dharamshala notified vide Press note dated 21.06.2020 to be held on 6th & 7th August, 2020
to any subsequent period, post normalization of COVID-19 crisis; and/or
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ to set aside that the Press Note dated 21.07.2020 issued by Respondent No. 1 and direction be issued to Respondent No.
1 to reconsider the Press Note in the current COVID-19 Pandemic outbreak; and/or
(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the respondents to immediately grant other reliefs, as detailed out
in the aforesaid Grounds of the captioned Writ Petition, which are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity and to avoid prolixity.
The petitioner claims to have filed this petition as Pro Bono Publico, questioned for an oblique motive, therefore, this Court is required to first satisfy
itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner, the prima-facie correctness of the information given by them because after all the attractive brand
name of public interest litigation cannot be used for suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public
injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. The common rule of locus-standi in such cases is relaxed so as to enable the
Court to look into the grievances complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive, deprivation, illiterate and the disabled and who cannot vindicate the legal
wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. But, then while protecting the rights of the people from being
violated in any manner, utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which are
motivated. After all, public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and
disadvantaged. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the Judiciary has to be extremely
careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or public interest seeking is not lurking. It is to
be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and
prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to
entertain where it is against the social justice and public good.
In the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another versus The State of West Bengal and others AIR 1987 SC 110,9 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed as follows:-
“Today public spirited litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts and
among the public. They must be above suspicion. Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to
Courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is therefore necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline
the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do no restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest
Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves Administrative and
executive functions. This does not mean that traditional litigation should stay out. They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like
decentralizing the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to Village Courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and
by a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases…
It is only when Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basis human rights are invaded or
when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, should leave aside procedural
shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the
underdog and the neglected. It is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on Public Interest Litigants.â€
In S.P Anand, Indore versus H.D.Deve Gowda and others (1996) 6 SCC 734, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“18….. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in
moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave
like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he
owes it to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise
the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half- baked information without proper research or by
persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be
borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of
proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations.
So also the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point
of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the
point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as
showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged
their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the
correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be
countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases,
freedom of speech and expression, uniform civil code, etc; we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate use of this important lever of
public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself.â€
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mr. ‘X’ versus Hospital ‘Z’ (1998) 8 SCC 296 held as follows:-
“15. “Right†is an interest recognised and protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong.
Respect for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined ""Right"". In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of
a legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition, the elements of a ""legal right"" are that the 'right' is vested in a person
and is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a
manner so as to prevent the violation of the right, If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a .person, the latter can seek its protection against a
person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right.â€
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) versus Union of India and others (2002) 2 SCC 333 held as under:-
“77.Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it
is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public
interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were
unable to seek legal redress, were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a co-operative and
collaborative effort of the parties and the Court, so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a
position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz., “litigation
in the interest of the publicâ€.â€
In Ashok Kumar Pandey versus State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering few decisions on the aspect of
public interest litigation observed as follows:-
“4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said
petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public
interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ""publicity interest
litigation†or ""private interest litigation†or ""politics interest litigation†or the latest trend ""paise income litigationâ€. If not properly regulated and
abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public
interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant or poke ones nose into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and
genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects
were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal versus H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 30 5and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like
any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852)
and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).â€
5.It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation’. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public
Interest' is defined thus:
Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or
amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.â€
6.In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), ""public interest†is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by
the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national government.â€
7.In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is
public interest, the Court has laid down as follows : (SCC p.331)
“53.The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right
or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression ""PIL"" means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or
general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.â€
8.In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p.334)
62.Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity
of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the
threshold.â€
9.In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows : (SCC pp.345-346)
98.While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this
newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow its process to be
abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain
or private profit or other oblique consideration.â€
In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.348, para 109)
109.It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for
vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold.â€
11.It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time
otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable
concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed
and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants
with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death and facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,
persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public
revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a
long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a
proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public
interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a
result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine
litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system.
12.Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded
on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process
to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of
habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to
be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
13.The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the ""public interest litigation†in its report of Public Interest
Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and
interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant
segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others.â€
14.The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and
(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between
two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii)
avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case,
however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not
encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with
imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering
where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs.
Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (AIR 1994 SC 215.1 N) o
litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access
to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, JT (1996) 7
SC 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts
and among the public.
As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is
shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately
be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet
unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be
otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114, )this
Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so- called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the
Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting
aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it
was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the
petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do
well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and
dismiss them with costs as afore -stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval
of the Courts.
17……
18.In S.P.Gupta versus Union of India 1981 Supp. SCC 87 it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of
PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. It has also left
the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24)
But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for
personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and
others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective.â€
19.In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 169), it has been said that public interest litigation is a
weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.
20.Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., (1987 (2) SCC 295, (SCC at page 331) said:
Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among
the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46)
* * *
Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without
any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions.
If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law,
instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (SCC p.334, para 59)
* * *
I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone
to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants. (SCC p.335, para 61)â€
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. Union of India, (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in
full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of
the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha
vs. Union of India, (1984 (3) SCC 161).
22.Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (1976 (1) SCC 671 e)xpressed his view that the application
of a busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37)
It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i)
'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming
under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend
to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of
meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court
should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold.â€
23.Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. v. Union of India, (1981 (1) SCC 568 i)n stronger terms stated:
(SCC p.589, para 48)
48.If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million
people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him.â€
24.In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990 (4) SCC 449), Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8)
While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not
be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being
considered by the court.â€
In Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991 (4) SCC 584 ,610), Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with
the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus: (SCC p.610, para 21)
I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a
limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the serviceability of the
institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to
the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled.â€
26.In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991 (1) SCC 598) it was observed as follows: (SCC pp.604-05, para 7)
Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under
Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court.
Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation.
Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which
are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of
vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not
obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public
interest litigation.â€
27.In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) ""the courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations†or in the words of Sarkaria, J.
the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself†and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, ""the doors of the courts should
not be ajar for such vexatious litigants.â€
In Dr. B. Singh versus Union of India and others (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:-
“12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to
see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-
oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who
approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested
interest indulge in the past time of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal
as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be
thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.â€
In R & M Trust versus Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others (2005) 3 SCC 91, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public
Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of
publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.
Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by
some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very
rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the
purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent
people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to
serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes
persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the
courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of people
who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities…….â€
In Gurpal Singh versus State of Punjab and others (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of
an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima
facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique
motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot, afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the
guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The
Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They
masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their
own to protect.
6………
As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is
shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where only a minuscule percentage can legitimately
be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases,
yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives. High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted
above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others
(AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters
continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said
decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came
to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the
road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter
out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique
motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
8…….
It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts innumerable days are wasted, which time
otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable
concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed
and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants
with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in
which persons sentenced to death facing the gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long
years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc.
are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busy
bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit
either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by
wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to
loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the
doors of the Court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an
effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who
approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested
interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as
well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be
thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.â€
In Kushum Lata versus Union of India and others (2006) 6 SCC 180, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:-
“5. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said
petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public
interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be ""publicity interest
litigation†or ""private interest litigation†or ""politics interest litigation†or the latest trend ""paise income litigationâ€. The High Court has found that
the case at hand belongs to the second category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release
vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight
errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or
their personal grudge and enmity. The Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary
jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit
or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305)
and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116.) A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public
interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas
Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).â€
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) versus Union of India and others (2008) 5 SCC 511 observed as under:-
“59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior
courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware's versus
State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 590 ,public interest litigation has nowadays largely become “publicity interest litigationâ€, “private interest
litigationâ€, or “politics interest litigation†or the latest trend “paise income litigationâ€. Much of PIL is really blackmail.
Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not
afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the
dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together.â€
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 ,in
paragraphs 178, 179, 180 and 181, laid down the following guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation:-
“178.We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the Public Interest Litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its
misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by
the Courts for improving ecology and environment, and the directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden
duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage genuine bonafide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in
consonance with the Constitution and the laws.
The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the
High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the
inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of
Court’s directions in PIL.
In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL.
181.We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number
of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High
Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that
the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed
to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should
also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing
exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.â€
In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others (2014) 5 SCC 53,0 a Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“49.The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by
ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to
approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of
certain individuals.
The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest
litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the
rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who
misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest
involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely
affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under
the particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation.â€
From the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be concluded that the Court would allow litigation in public interest only if it is found:-
(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought
for its enforcement;
(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or malafide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest
or on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public
duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;
(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of
vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;
(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every
default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;
(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the
institution of the judicial and the democratic set up of the country;
(vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;
(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction
that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;
(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;
(x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant,
politicians, busy body or persons of groups with mala fide objective or either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing
or considerations extraneous to public interest.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid parameters, now, in case, the credentials of the petitioner are examined, it would be noticed that the petitioner is
neither a candidate nor has any concern with the examination in question. Even as per the averments made in the petition there are as many as 2331
candidates who would be taking examination in question and none of such candidates, who are otherwise well educated and qualified, have
approached this Court for postponing the examination in question.
The mere fact that the petitioner claims himself to be the resident of the State will also not furnish him a cause of action for grant of the reliefs as
sought for in this petition for the simple reason that the petitioner himself claims to have filed this petition on behalf of those candidates, who were to
take the examination. This is clearly evident from the perusal of the para-4 of the petition, which reads as under:-
“4. That it is pertinent to mention here that although Hundreds of the aggrieved selected applicants of the aforesaid Examinations are in constant
touch with the petitioner herein, however, they are not willing to disclose their names in the instant petition, fearing vendetta by respondent No. 1 and
thus the instant petition has been preferred as a PIL by the humble petitioner herein. Further the representation made by many selected applicants to
respondent No. 1, the same would be provided if, this Hon’ble Court directs the present petitioner and the present petitioner beseeching this
Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice present the same as and when required.â€
As a last ditch effort, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed on behalf of the candidates but their names
have intentionally not been disclosed or else the respondent No. 1 would be vindictive towards such candidates.
To say the least, the pleas raised are absolutely fallacious and cannot be accepted.
As observed above, the candidates are well educated and qualified and if aggrieved would have themselves approached this Court directly and
would not have set up the petitioner as their stooge.
In the given circumstances, we have no doubt in our mind that the instant petition is nothing but a publicity oriented petition and not a Public
Interest Litigation and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the H.P. High Court Advocates’ Welfare
Association. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
For compliance of payment of costs, to come up on 2. 09.2020.