Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2004] Insc 755 (14 December 2004)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H.
Kapadia (Arising out of Cc No. 11374 of 2004) Arijit Pasayat, J.
This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession and is almost
a black spot on the noble profession. The petitioner who belongs to this
profession filed a petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation"
before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment, the
High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest involved and
in fact the petitioner had resorted to black mailing respondent nos. 6 and 7
and was caught red handed accepting "black mailing" money. The High
Court also noticed that the allegations of unauthorized constructions made in
the petition were also not true.
Cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was levied, was
directed to be paid to the affected respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the High
Court.
It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed professionals, if the
allegation, as found by the High Court to be true and which presently appear to
be the subject matter of further proceedings in a criminal case, are true. This
will leave the members of the legal profession black faced for the black deed
of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep in the
profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive
brand name of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can be
said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation
should not be.
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
litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the
last 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. 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).
It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest
litigation'. In Stroud's 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." In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public
interest" is defined as follows:
"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything
the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by national government...." In Janata Dal case (supra)
this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 52 of
the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as
follows:
"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all
proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or
seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the
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." In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed
out as follows:
"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." In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been
pointed out as follows:
"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." In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it
was observed as follows:
"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as 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".
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, 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 facing 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 busybodies,
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 Courts 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.
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 armory of law for delivering social justice to the
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 considerations. 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.
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 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." 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 busybodies 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
2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited draught 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, (1996 (7)
JT 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 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, 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. Apart from the
sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind
such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive behind the
petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, 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.
In S.P. Gupta v. 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. He 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." 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.
These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of West Bengal (2004 (3) SCC 349) and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India
& Ors. (2004 (3) SCC 363).
It is disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar
Councils and the Bar Association to see that the process of law is not abused
and polluted by its member. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar
Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in
aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand
name of "Public Interest Litigation". That will be keeping in line
with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring
disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this
regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed
costs of Rs.25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further cost.
Let copy of this judgment be sent to Bar Council of India and the Supreme
Court Bar Association by the Registry for necessary action.
The petition deserves to be dismissed, which we direct.
Back
