Delhi High Court
Abhishek Jain vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#68
+ W.P.(C) 6149/2011
ABHISHEK JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sugriva Dubey, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with
Ms.Maneesha Dhir & Ms.Preeti
Dalal, Advs. Resp. 1
Mr.Najmi Waziri with
Ms.Neha Kapoor, Advs. R-2&3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 24.08.2011
Almost five decades back Nobel laureate Samuel Beckett in his play
"Waiting for Godot" through a character stated that in the immense
confusion, one thing alone was clear that they were waiting for Godot.
In the case at hand one thing that gets frescoed and projected to the
surface is that the petitioner who has preferred this public interest litigation
is embedded to play with words and usher in a sense of contradiction,
irreconciliability and dichotomy. One may, in a different sphere of life,
pronounce with heroics that he contradicts himself every moment and,
therefore, he grows but, a significant one, the same has no allowance in the
field of law. The pleadings, assertions, asseverations and the prayer sought
in a writ petition, especially in a public interest litigation has to be clear,
manifest, purposefully demonstrable and luculent making out a case that is
relevant to public interest.
In the case at hand, the petitioner in paragraphs 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31
has pleaded thus: -
"26. That the respondents have taken a decision not to permit
a group of persons to protest against the corruption and also not
to allow any organization to speak against the corruption and
for this reason the respondents have not permitted a particular
organization to carry out demonstrations and protest which is
contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
27. xxx xxx xxx
28. That the object of law should be to expose the corrupt
face of the respondents but the respondents are trying to prevent
the organizations from fighting against corruption and for this
reason the respondents have not granted permission for
demonstration though Justice P.B. Sawant Commission has
found nothing wrong in the particular organization which is
fighting against the corruption but despite that the permission
was not accorded which is contrary to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
29. That the Constitution has provided that any citizen of
India has a right to take demonstration and also protest against
the public policy which is contrary to the interest of the
common man and the fundamental right of the person cannot be
evaded by the respondents by not granting permission to the
particular organization for demonstration against the corrupt
practices of the respondents and the petitioner is one of the
participants who believes that the respondents are indulged in
corrupt practices and the common man's interest is being
evaded.
30. That the Constitution of India has provided that the
petitioner and other common man of the country has every right
to speak and the said right cannot be allowed to be evaded and
in the present case the respondents have sealed the place itself
and did not permit any individual to demonstrate against the
respondents and as upto date no organization has been stopped
from taking demonstrations as all those organizations are
connected with the political parties and hence Article 14 of the
Constitution of India has been evaded by the respondents.
31. That Article 14 embodies the general principles of
equality before the law. A specific group of persons cannot be
restrained from taking demonstration in Delhi. The respondents
as upto date have been allowing the demonstrations in the
Parliament Street and it is admitted that every month the traffic
of Delhi faces jam. But there should be a permanent solution to
these problems and merely a particular organization is
restrained then the problem will not be settled and solved and
hence it would be just and proper if a particular is allotted for
demonstration such as Burari or other outskirt of Delhi which
are lying vacant and the demonstration will not cause any
inconvenience to the public and hence the present petition."
Earlier to the aforesaid paragraphs, in paragraph 7, 8 and 9, it has been
asserted as follows: -
"7. That the common man has the right to move the glory to
live with dignity by carrying out a lawful profession or calling
cannot be abridged in the name of mass protests or mass
demonstrations. The collective protest cannot be allowed to
take the shape of collective passion to project a fractured mind
thereby creating a dent in the concept of rule of law.
8. The persons or the organizations should always keep in
mind that in the name of demonstration or protestation the life
of a civilized society cannot be allowed to be paralyzed in the
name of legitimate exercise or one's right to protest the
fundamental right of others cannot be scuttled.
9. That in a democratic polity the fundamental right of each
citizen is sacrosanct. The collective cannot destroy the same
and the said crowd cannot be allowed to create a tremor in the
fundamental right of others and tremble the spine of the
members of the society at large by forming a group of a
political party. The collective protest cannot be allowed to take
the shape of collective passion to project a fractured mind
thereby creating a dent in the concept of rule of law and
bringing in concavity in the constitutional philosophy which
sings the song of highly cherished fundamental rights of
millions of people. The demonstrations or dharna in the
Parliament Street paralyzes the life of others and the right of
others cannot be crucified at the fanciful pedestal of a group or
a party and by no stretch of imagination it can be guillotined in
a cavalier fashion from any pupil. The law of the country does
not show countenance."
We have quoted the pleadings in extenso as we are compelled to think
that the prayer clause is not in consonance with the pleadings and, in fact,
there are contradiction in terms. The duality of mind is writ large. On one
hand, a collective grievance is agitated keeping in view the basic conception
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and on the other
hand, the inequality shown to various groups to carry out demonstration
under the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been
pyramided.
It needs no special emphasis to state that the whole thing is absolutely
perplexing. The purpose is comparable to a mirage. There is no oasis and
that reflects the total uncertainty of mind. What the petitioner really seeks
in this public interest litigation, can even baffle a Solomon. It is
understandable that a person files a litigation of the present nature for
protection of the collective so that their fundamental rights are not affected,
but when the pleadings are in a maze, the purpose is lost, the concentration
gets unfocused, a sense of puzzlement reigns and anarchy prevails.
A public interest litigation is a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. We have our gravest doubt whether the court in
exercise of inherent, equitable and extra-ordinary jurisdiction, as conferred
on it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can grant the relief that
has been prayed for because in the prayer clause the petitioner has prayed for
commanding the respondents to demarcate a place for demonstration/
political rallies/any protest by any organization or political parties against
the respondents in the outskirts of Delhi to enable the offices to run
smoothly and also to enable the common man to attend to their duties
without any traffic jam caused due to the rallies and demonstrations in the
public interest. As advised at present, we are disposed to think that such a
mandamus cannot be issued.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we dismiss the writ petition in
limine and hope and trust the wisdom shall drawn upon the petitioner so that
the repeated petitions replete with contradiction are not filed.
We say with certitude that filing of this kind of public interest
litigation deserves to be discouraged. A person while filing a public interest
litigation describing himself as pro-bono should not conceive the idea of
experimentation because the law does not permit that a litigant should come
to court thinking "it is a laboratory or a playgrounds where children come to
play". The experimentation of any nature has to be kept at bay. We say no
more.
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 24, 2011 SANJIV KHANNA, J
kapil
