Bombay High Court
Forum For East Justice Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Its Cabinet ... on 10 September, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-OS:13945-DB
6.20-pil.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION NO.6 OF 2020
BASAVRAJ Forum for Fast Justice & Anr. ..... Petitioners
GURAPPA
PATIL
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
Versus
PATIL
Date: 2024.09.10
14:16:29 +0530
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Bhagvanji G. Raiayni, Petitioner No.2 in-person.
Mr. Y. R. Mishra with Mr. N. R. Bubna for respondent No.1
Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for respondent No.2 -
State
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 4, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Heard Mr. Bhagvanji Raiayni, Petitioner No.2 in-person,
Mr.Y. R. Mishra, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 -
Union of India and Smt. P. H. Kantharia, learned Government
Pleader representing respondent No.2 - State.
2. Petitioner No.1 describes itself to be a public trust pursuing
judicial reforms in the country. Petitioner No.2 describes himself
to be a leading judicial activist who is said to have filed over 150
Basavraj Page|1
6.20-pil.docx
PIL petitions in the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
He holds a degree in Civil Engineering and has stated that he is
appearing in-person.
3. This petition styled as PIL petition makes generalized
statements and prays for omnibus reliefs stating that the
petitioners are anguished by "blatant defiance of the secular and
democratic character of the provisions contained in the Indian
Constitution". It further goes on to state that India has more
religious shrines, maths and ashrams as against the total sum of
such institutions in rest of the countries of the world and has
also maximum number of priests, pontiffs, sathus, smooth
sayers, sants mahants, godipatis preachers, kathakars, gurus
and jagadgurus etc.
4. We regret to note that this is yet another petition in the
series of such petitions, where petitioner No.2 has been
appearing in-person and making absolutely vague, generalized
and omnibus assertions seeking following reliefs:
a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Man-
damus or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, Or-
der or Direction, directing-
Basavraj Page|2
6.20-pil.docx
b) The Respondents to file their says in lieu of the contents and aver-
ments in various paras of the petition and produce relevant
records in support of their submissions through their affidavits.
c) To stop state functionaries from remaining present in the official
capacity for attending / inaugurating any religious rituals of any
faith or performing bhoomi puja or such other rites.
d) To stop the use of public premises for installing any idol or picture
of any deity except those of the Father of Nation, President and
Prime Minister or performing any sort of pujas or performance of
any such rites.
e) To ban ritualistic Poojas and immersion of idols and dead bodies in
natural water bodies to protect environment hazards.
f) The Petitioner know that there is an Act enacted by the Maharash-
tra State as ....but that is just a paper tiger. This court to direct the
state to enforce this Act in peiter and spirit and the court to moni-
tor the compliances for few years for proper thereof.
g) And to stop the Respondent Union Government and advising the
states in the Indian federation from funding any religious activities
or giving subsidies for yatras or from the management of any reli-
gious shrines except as required under the maintenance of monu-
ments under the archaeological departments of the governments.
If any state doesn't behave, the UOI shall file appropriate proceed-
ings in the courts for complying the constitutional provisions.
h) To dissolve the state managed temple trusts or boards and han-
dover the temples under its control to the trusts made by the fol-
lowers of the respective faith.
i) To introduce compulsory subject of secularism, humanism and ra-
tionalism in the schools at middle level in lieu of the constitutional
provision under Art. 51-A(h) and the Respondents may be advised
to bring a special legislation to bring mass awareness through
trained employees with decent salaries, necessary travel accom-
modation and such other facilities for training the masses on secu-
larism as enshrined in the constitution.
j) Ministers and persons on ministerial status be stopped from leav-
ing the offices during working hours for temple visits and religious
rites anywhere, visiting voters' constituencies and addressing elec-
tion ralies also during electioneering as they being the paid public
servants and advise the Respondents to enact a law to this effect.
k) Those ministers violating the Oath of Office and allegiance to the
constitution be made punishable under the relevant sections of
Basavraj Page|3
6.20-pil.docx
IPC, CPC, Cr. PC and service rules of the UOI and States leading to
suspension, disqualification and dismission with fine.
l) Government officers and employees not to wear any dress symbol-
ising their personal faith, not to display any pictures or idols of
their gods and goodesses, in officers and also not to perform
prayers, namaz or such other Puja or such religious celebrations
during office hours.
m) The religious trusts, funds / income be taxed as in the case of indi-
vidual assesses.
n) Article 27 of the constitution and the Preamble in its true meaning
of secularism shall be effectively enformed.
o) decisions of Respondent Governments giving ministerial status to
appointees looking after religious affairs be quashed and to ban
such appointments.
p) To weed out fake or bogus tantriks, soothsayers, astrologers, mis-
leading practicers of Vastus, Reki, Numerologists, Face readers,
Ocultists, miracle makers and such other fraudsters and prosecute
them under the relevant civil and criminal laws.
q) For expeditious hearing of this petition.
r) For cost to the petitioners.
s) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances
may provide.
5. The petitioner No.2 has extracted extensively from various
newspaper reports which according to the petitioners go on to
show that the Governments and their Ministers directly and
indirectly spend crores of rupees using State machinery for
promoting religions and self-seeking votes for showing
themselves pious, god-fearing for self-publicity. The petitioner
also takes exception to the Ministers and the Government
Basavraj Page|4
6.20-pil.docx
Officials skipping their official work and abstaining from their
duties for days for election causing drain on public exchequer.
6. The instant PIL petition even gives a suggestion to the
respondent that Union of India through the Parliament, under
the advice of the Supreme Court, must enact a law making
Article 51A most effective with a further prayer that this Court
may monitor proper implementation of the provisions to be
made therein.
7. Petitioner No.2 appeared and argued the matter, however,
except for reading the assertions made in the writ petition
extensively and pointing out to certain newspaper reports and
headlines, has not substantiated the submissions. On query
made by the Court repeatedly as to how and on what ground the
prayers made in the PIL petition which, as observed above are
omnibus in nature, can be granted, petitioner No.2 kept reading
the averments made in the writ petition and has also submitted
a written submission. The PIL petition, in our opinion, does not
make out any legal ground except for making general assertions
and seeking a prayer that Court may advice the State to amend
the Representation of People Act, 1951. In the written
Basavraj Page|5
6.20-pil.docx
submission, the petitioner has even stated that whatever be the
personal faith or belief of a judge, he has to abide by the tenets
of the constitution and the laws and that he should be possessed
with skill of acumen and judicial courage of fearless judgments.
The entire petition does not make out any legal ground for
seeking the reliefs prayed therein. The petition is full of general
and long statements which are in the nature of expressing
personal views of the petitioner that are legally unsubstantiated
requiring our interference in the matter.
8. Another such petition, where petitioner No.2 herein had
appeared as petitioner in-person (PIL No.16 of 2004) was
dismissed by this Court by means of order dated 29 th January
2024, finding that the said petition also was full of assertions
which were entirely general in nature and read more like the
petitioner's ipse dixit. The Court further observed in the said
order that none of the grounds taken in the said petition even
remotely suggest, much less expressly set out, which provisions
of the Constitution of India stand violated. The relevant extract
of the said judgment and order dated 29th January 2024 is
extracted hereinbelow:
"As can be seen above, the same are entirely general in nature and
Basavraj Page|6
6.20-pil.docx
read more like the Petitioners ipse dixit. None of the grounds even
remotely suggest, much less expressly set out, which provisions of
the Constitution of India stand violated. Infact, the only reference to
any Constitutional provision is to be found in ground (viii) which
merely make a mention of Article 51 - A which provides for the
Fundamental Duties of every citizen of India and thus it is unclear why
the same has even been alluded to in the present Petition."
9. The Court in the said order dated 29th January 2024 also
extracted certain observations made by the Court while deciding
another PIL Petition viz. PIL (L) No.41119 of 2022 which was
also filed by petitioner No.2 herein. The observations made by
this Court in its judgment dated 19th July 2023 in PIL (L)
No.41119 of 2022 are extracted hereinbelow:
"12. We place on record our disapproval of the numerous poorly
drafted and haphazardly presented petitions persistently filed by this
Petitioner, subjecting the Court to a monologue, thereby consuming
valuable judicial time and resources. It is essential to exercise
prudence and diligence in preparing and presenting petitions before
the Court, ensuring that they are wellfounded and supported by
adequate research and compelling arguments, avoiding using
intemperate language. It is crucial to maintain respect and
professionalism in all legal pleadings, regardless of the nature of the
case or the parties involved. The PIL Petitioner must try to understand
the relevant legal principles, administrative and constitutional law, the
scope of writ jurisdiction, and if they cannot do so, seek legal
assistance. That is so because the judicial system operates with
limited time and resources, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs
burden the Court and hinder the resolution of other genuine and
urgent cases."
10. Such petitions do not serve any purpose; rather contribute
to wastage of precious judicial time. The Court, as observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal
v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, is expected,
Basavraj Page|7
6.20-pil.docx
on one hand to encourage the genuine causes being brought
before it however, at the same time, attempts by filing such
baseless petitions and petitions based on completely
unsubstantiated legal grounds should be discouraged. Having
regard to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), we find that
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the PIL petition is hereby dismissed.
12. However, there will be no order as to costs.
13. Interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj Page|8
