The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, while dismissing a Public Interest Litigation with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited with the ‘Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund’, held that though wishful thinking is not a prohibited activity, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court when it forms part of the grounds of a petition.
Facts
The Petitioner, appearing in person, filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stating that Articles 124A, 124(2) and 124(3) of the Constitution of India should be followed in the matter of appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India. He also prayed for interim relief restraining the Chief Justice of India designate (at the relevant point of time) to take oath which was scheduled on 09.11.2022. He also prayed for a direction to strike out Order VIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules since it did not permit petitions to be filed in Hindi. He also stated that some of his representations submitted to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India and other authorities had not been replied to as they were in Hindi and, therefore, it is in violation of the Official Languages Act, 1963.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the Petitioner in this petition made scandalous allegations against the former Chief Justices of India and other high dignitaries, including the Union Law Minister, without there being any material in support of the same filed along with the writ petition.
It also opined that the provisions of Article 124 had certainly been followed in the matter of appointment of the Chief Justice of India.
Relying on a plethora of cases like Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India, Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India, State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India it further opined that:
“howsoever genuine a case brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt; no trust can be placed by the court on a mala fide applicant in a public interest litigation…The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes.”
It also opined that this petition was filed only to gain publicity without there being any material to support the averments made in the writ petition, i.e., it was more of a Publicity-Oriented Litigation than a Public Interest Litigation. After making the above-stated bald allegations, the Petitioner has not demonstrated as to how these Articles have been violated:
“The prayers urged in this petition are not only against the genesis of a social interest litigation, but also revolt against the dignity of the constitutional office. Notably, the cause espoused in this petition has already received the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been dismissed for lack of merits vide order dated 02.11.2022 in W.P.(C) Diary No. 34617/2022. The Petitioner chose to come before this Court, after camouflaging the same issue as a fresh cause, which reflects on his oblique motive and highlights the questionable credentials of the Petitioner… Whereas wishful thinking, in particular, is not a prohibited activity, but when it forms part of the grounds of a petition before the court, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and any such attempt must be repelled in a manner that it sends a tenacious message.”
Judgment
The Bench directed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited with the ‘Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund’ within 30 days from the date of order. In case the amount was not deposited within 30 days, the concerned SDM was to recover the same as arrears of land revenue and deposit the said amount with the ‘Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund’ with intimation to the Registrar General of this Court.
Case: Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 15444/2022
Bench: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on: 11th November 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :