Kushum
Lata Vs. Union of India & Ors [2006] Insc 398 (12 July 2006)
Arijit
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta Arijit Pasayat, J.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court by which the Writ Petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in
short 'PIL') was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.
In
the writ petition the stand taken by the appellant was as follows:
Respondent
No.4 had issued a Notification on 20.11.2002 in pursuance of Government Order
dated 2.11.2002 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)
Rules, 1963 (in short the 'Rules') for auction of mines of sand, boulders etc.
located in the district of Saharanpur. As per the Notification the auction was
to be held on 23.12.2002, but the same was postponed to 30.12.2002. According
to the appellant, she was permitted to take part in the auction on 23.12.2002
but subsequently she was not allowed to participate and with a view to favour
respondent No.5, who was politically well connected, in a mala fide manner the
auction was held. A writ petition was filed styled as PIL for direction to the
authorities for investigating into the alleged irregularities. The High Court
noted that one Mohd. Iqbal was the successful bidder who was not a party in the
PIL. In any event, the appellant cannot file the PIL when she herself claimed
to be an intending bidder. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
In
support of the appeal, it has been submitted that the High Court erroneously
proceeded on a highly technical basis without appreciating that the public
interest was involved, the State's largess was being given for a very paltry
amount and, therefore, writ application should not have been dismissed.
Learned
counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the order stating that
the High Court rightly observed that the petition though styled as a PIL was
nothing but an attempt to misguide the Court. There was no public interest
involved and in fact when the appellant was herself an intending bidder
according to her own saying and as such the petition could not have been
maintained. Additionally, a group of persons have challenged the legality of
the auction in Writ Petition No.349 of 2003 which is pending and the appellant is
petitioner No.11 in the said writ petition.
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
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. 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
-
the credentials
of the applicant;
-
the prima facie
correctness or nature of information given by him;
-
the information
being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and
seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting
interests;
-
nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character
of others; and
-
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 by competitors continue 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
is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any
attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several
cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on
unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should normally
be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for
verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the
petition. 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. v. 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) and Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2005 (1) SCC 590).
In the
instant case, the appellant has styled the petition as PIL though it relates to
a tender where she herself claims to be a tenderer. In another petition,
questioning legality of the auction, she is a party. The High Court was
perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition styled as a PIL. We make it
clear that Writ Petition No.349/2003 which is stated to be pending shall be
considered in its own perspective in accordance with law. We express no opinion
on the merits of the said writ petition.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
