The Kerala High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition alleging the State's Top officials of influencing others to destroy the Petitioner's life, imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- on the Petitioner, payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.
The Court in this case highlighted that the Petitioner had not indicated any specific action done by the Respondents for seeking the issuance of directions to suspend them. It was discerned that the pleadings in the petition were vague and insufficient to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The Court was of the staunch opinion that despite the "wanton allegations" against the Respondents, no material was produced to justify the same. The High Court further took note that the Magistrate had also dismissed the complaint by the Petitioner earlier.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner's case was that the Respondent's public servants including the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Additional Director Generals of Police, and various Police Officers of different ranks, had been trying to deceive the Court and destroy his life.
It was alleged that his signature had been forged in some government security documents and the Respondents were also trying to influence others and destroy the course of justice. The Petitioner also averred that the Government Pleaders were arguing for the Accused and pointing out defects. They sought that the public servants ought to be suspended by the Union and State Governments.
It was also put forward as a relief to the Court to issue a direction to the Registrar of the High Court not to intervene in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and to register the writ petitions based on their merits without being influenced by the nomenclature or the prayers.
Observation of the Court:
The Court said that filing writ petitions without any basis amount to 'threatening the system into ridicule'.
It was observed by the Bench that Access to justice, though a fundamental right, cannot be extended to a right to prefer misconceived and frivolous petitions. The nature of reliefs claimed for and the nebulous pleadings were indicative of the absence of any particular right of the Petitioner having been infringed.
The Court in this case highlighted that the Petitioner had not indicated any specific action done by the Respondents for seeking the issuance of directions to suspend them. It was discerned that the pleadings in the petition were vague and insufficient to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The Court was of the staunch opinion that despite the "wanton allegations" against the Respondents, no material was produced to justify the same. The High Court further took note that the Magistrate had also dismissed the complaint by the Petitioner earlier.
With regard to the second relief sought by the Petitioner wherein he had alleged that the Registry had noted certain defects in his petition, and contended that such noting of defects affected his rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the Court was unable to comprehend how the defects noted by the Registry of this Court in the writ petitions filed can be attributed with allegations of violating fundamental rights. One of the functions bestowed upon the Registry is to scrutinize the petitions filed before the Court. Rule 15 and Rule 50 of the Kerala High Court Rules 1971 confer power upon the Registry to notice defects, if any, in the petitions or applications filed before the Court. The Bench further observed that the instant case did not indicate that any right of the petitioner had been infringed.
The Kerala High Court held that apart from the above, in the absence of violation of any specific right, a person cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of pleadings and the reliefs claimed reveals that the writ petition is filed on an experimental basis and in bad taste. The manner in which the Petitioner has raised his pleadings in the writ petition and the nature of reliefs sought compels this Court to visit the petitioner with costs as a disincentive for indulging in such frivolous writ petitions.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned grounds the Court dismissed the petition, directing the Petitioner to pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. The Court even clarified that KeLSA would be authorized to initiate legal proceedings if the same was not paid by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order.
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 202 OF 2023
Coram: Justice Kurian Thomas
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Asif Azad
Advocate for Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu and Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :