Jharkhand High Court
Binod Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 11 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 3634 of 2024
Binod Choudhary, Son of Late Rampati Choudhary, aged about 54
years, Village - Kandi, P.O. & P.S. - Kandi, District - Garhwa
(822114) (Jharkhand)
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
Ranchi-834004.
3. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Gadhwa P.O. & P.S. -
Garhwa, District - Garhwa 822114.
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gadhwa, P.O. & P.S.
Garhwa, District - Garhwa, 822114.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, ACB
Divisional Office, Palamu, P.O.- Daltonganj, P.S. - Sadar Palamau,
District - Palamu.
7. Ramchandra Chandravanshi, Member of Legislative Assembly,
Bishrampur Constituency, Resident of House No. 35, Vill + Post +
Thana + Dist : Garhwa, Jharkhand, Pin No. 822114.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1&3-6: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For Resp. No.2: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.7: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Ms. Priya Sahay, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 03.11.2025 Pronounced on: 11/11/2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.
1. The petitioner claims to have filed the instant pro bono publico
for the grant of following reliefs:-
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to
respondent authorities to consider the evidences on record
and initiate inquiry/investigation into irregularities and
illegalities in allocation and usage of developmental funds,
especially MLA Fund, on the recommendations of
Respondent No.6, who is sitting Member of Legislative
Assembly, Bishrampur Constituency, Jharkhand Vidhan
Sabha and in lieu of fact that stated Respondent No.6 has
acted contravention to Rules and guidelines concerning
expenditure of MLA Fund issued Vide Letter No. 1212
dated 01.02.1999 under the seal and Signature of
Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Development,
Government of Bihar (Now Jharkhand).
(ii) For direction upon respondent authorities to enable police
protection to Petitioner who is acting as Whistleblower,
and is unveiling large scale misappropriation of Funds in
aide and alliance with corrupt officials and Respondent
No.5 who has directly benefited the Trust societies and
private institutions in which sitting Member of Legislative
Assembly, Bishrampur Constituency and his aides have
stake; and possibly they have derived a loopholes in
government mechanism to siphon away the public money
towards personal interest.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
2. The petitioner claims himself to be the resident of District
Garhwa and engaged in social welfare activities in the district of
Garhwa. He claims to have carried out several welfare activities time to
time for the interest of the people.
3. It is further averred that Ministry of Rural Development,
Department of Rural Development (Disha Division) vide letter dated
15.01.2024 issued under seal and signature of Under Secretary to
Government of India, has appointed him as Non-Official Member of
District Level DISHA Committee of Garhwa as per provision 3(ix) of
the Guidelines for District Level Committee.
4. It is further averred that the petitioner has always been vigilant
about undergoing local development works in his own village and
nearby villages and in this context, several local residents of the village
informed him about large scale irregularities in allotment, disbursement
and propagation of local developmental works under the Office of
Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa. It is averred that local
residents of the village have alleged suspected role of respondent no.7,
exiting Member of Legislative Assembly, Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, in
siphoning off MLA funds for his personal purposes.
5. It is averred that MLA Funds are categorized generally those
funds which is duly spent on the recommendation of the Member of
Legislative Assembly. MLA Fund is particularly a consolidated fund in
the hand of Deputy Development Commissioner, functioning under the
Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand. The role
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
of the Deputy Development Commissioner is to scrutinize the necessity
of such developmental works as per rules and guidelines and thereafter
approve and disburse such fund sanctioned against particular MLA
within 30 days of the recommendation.
6. Lastly it is averred that the rules and guidelines relating to
disbursement of MLA fund completely debars usage of MLA Funds
under certain categories and as per Appendix-2 of the Guidelines,
disbursement of funds on the recommendation of MLA/Counselor
cannot be made for the following categories -
(i) Any recommendation of work for repair and maintenance
or renovation of permanent asset except work for
protection and preservation of asset.
(ii) Grant and Credit.
(iii) Acquisition of property or payment of compensation for
acquired property.
(iv) Any recommendation for construction work or extra works
in the private institutions.
(v) Any recommendation for construction or repair work at
religious places.
(vi) Any recommendation for constructing government
building/Government related building/construction of
residential building/office building of organization/other
building.
(vii) Establishment of statues.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
7. According to the petitioner, he came to know that the respondent
no.7 has indulged in large-scale illegal disbursement of MLA funds in
aides and alliance with respondent authorities, especially office of
Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa, who has thereby allowed
illegal disbursement in favour of Public Institutions, Trusts and NGOs.
For this purpose, the petitioner preferred an application under the Right
to Information Act dated 10.02.2023 to know parameters of
expenditures against MLA Fund, a scheme under the Department of
Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand and wanted to know the
criteria of expenditure of MLA funds, as the respondent no.7 had been
illegally siphoning off funds to his own Trust in the name of
constructions, purchase of furniture, computer labs and several other
unauthorized expenditures. In reply to the said requisition, the
respondent no.5 supplied rules and guidelines stipulating disbursement
of MLA fund along with Memorandum No.121 dated 17.02.2023
(Annexure 3).
8. It is further averred that since the respondent no.7 has made
illegal recommendations that too beyond the rules and guidelines made
by the respondents-authorities, therefore, the petitioner preferred
another RTI application dated 20.02.2023 to know the expenditures
made in his resident block of Kandi and nearby Blocks Bardiha,
Majhiaon and in the said application the petitioner has sought entire set
of records regarding recommendations made by respondent no.7 and
consequent expenditures against MLA Fund made from 2005 to 2010
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
and 2015 to 2022. The respondent accordingly supplied the information
from which it transpired that on several occasions, respondent no.7 had
made recommendations for construction of buildings, purchase of
furniture, almirah, computers and other procurement of fixed assets
against the private institutions, Trusts and NGOs in which the petitioner
has direct role in administration. Further, respondent no.7 has made
recommendations for construction and supply of fixed assets in favour
of the trusts which are being run by rpl no.7 and his aides. Further,
respondent no.7 is one of the trustees of the Trust which is in the name
of his father Shiveshwar Chandravanshi and Laxmi Chandra
Chandravanshi and has made several illegal recommendations in favour
of the schools namely Lakshmi Chandravanshi High School, Garhwa
and Shiveshwar Chandravanshi College. Apparently, both the
institutions are private institutions owned and maintained by Trusts in
which respondent no.7 and his aides are trustees.
9. It is further averred in the writ petition that the RTI application
further revealed that respondent no.7 had made illegal
recommendations worth Rs.3.00 Crore in favour of private institutions
and same has illegally been disbursed without compliance and
guidelines enumerated in Resolution No.121 dated 17.02.2023 and
respondent no.7 has found ways to divert funds into his institutions or
the institutions wherein his aides are involved.
10. It is further averred that the respondent no.7 has acted with
malice utilizing his public position being the Member of Legislative
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Assembly of Bishrampur Constituency and has committed fraud and
dishonesty to the people of his constituency, including the petitioner
who has been expecting usage of MLA Funds for the welfare of general
public. Recommendation for utilization of funds for usage of private
institutions is prohibited and such recommendation amounts to
illegality in the eyes of law. The respondent-State or instrumentalities
of the State cannot, therefore, permit such large-scale commission of
illegalities and corrupt practices, which is leading to siphoning off
public money into the trusts and private institutions which are owned
and managed by the sitting MLA of Bishrampur Constituency and his
aides.
11. Upon notice, the respondent no.7 has appeared and has filed a
counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has though filed
the instant petition as a Public Interest Litigation, but has suppressed
the fact that he has been charge-sheeted by Garhwa Police in Garhwa
P.S. Case No. 141 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 406, 409,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the I.P.C. and pursuant to the submission
of another charge-sheet, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the I.P.C. vide
order dated 08.08.2012. The petitioner in these proceedings had
preferred an application for release of the vehicle, but the same was
rejected vide its order dated 08.08.2012 by observing as under -
"From perusal of the case record, it transpires that
aforementioned vehicle has been seized by Garhwa Police in
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
connection with the cash in hand instituted with regard to
embezzlement of government money by committing forgery.
During course of investigation, the petitioner has confessed
his guilt before the Police Officer that he has purchased the
vehicle in question from the government money and on the
basis of the said confessional statement, the vehicle was
recovered and seized by the police officer."
12. From the case records, it transpires that the aforementioned
vehicle has been seized by Garhwa Police in connection with cash-in-
hand instituted with regard to embezzlement of government money by
committing forgery. During the course of investigation, the petitioner
has confessed his guilt before the Police Officers that he purchased the
vehicle in question from the government money and on the basis of the
said confessional statement, the vehicle was recovered and seized by
the Police Officer.
13. It is further averred that Public Interest Litigation has been
entertained by this Court in light of the Jharkhand High Court (Public
Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, in which this Court believing the facts
stated in paragraph 5 that the petitioner was appointed as a Non-Official
Member of the District Level DISHA Committee, Garhwa,
has satisfied the prima facie bona fide credential of the petitioner and
thereafter issued notices, but the fact remains that the petitioner was
never nominated as a Non-Official Member of the District Level
DISHA Committee, Garhwa, in absence of report asked from the
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Superintendent of Police, Garhwa as well as the Block Development
Officer, Kandi, besides that the petitioner is a charge-sheeted person
involved in forgery of government money, thereby he loses his
credential to maintain the instant petition.
14. As regards the allegation of siphoning off MLA funds, it has
been stated that the Rules/Guidelines issued vide Letter No.1212 dated
01.02.1999 regarding recommendation for endorsement of MLA funds
categorically provides in Clause 5.10 as under -
"5.10 : dksbZ laLFkk ;fn ekuuh; fo/kku eaMy lnL; ds uke ls gks] ijUrq
mDr laLFkk vke turk ds fy, mi;ksxh ,oa ykHkdkjh gks rFkk mldk
fuca/ku@lEc/ku gks] rks ml fLFkfr esa fo/kku eaMy ds lnL; mDr laLFkk
esa viuh jkf'k dk mi;ksx fuekZ.k fodkl dk;Z esas dj ldrs gSaA"
15. The aforesaid Rules/Guidelines permit the disbursement of MLA
Fund to any institution which is for the development of general public.
Furthermore, even the Guidelines annexed by the petitioner, which he
claims to have obtained under the RTI, clearly provide that such fund
can be disbursed for the primary/middle high-schools/universities, if
they are affiliated with the State Government. In addition thereto, the
Guidelines on 01.02.1999 vide Letter No.1212 clearly states that any
recommendation made by the Member of Legislative Assembly shall be
sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Development
Commissioner, if the said proposal/recommendation is in public
interest. Therefore, the disbursement of MLA fund is not only based on
recommendation of the concerned MLA, but the Deputy
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Commissioner/Deputy Development Commissioner of the said district
can sanction the said money only after being satisfied that the purpose
for the same is in public interest.
16. As regards the allegation of MLA Fund being disbursed to
Shiveshwar Chandravanshi Inter/Degree College since 2011 till date, it
is averred that the concerned College has been granted affiliation by the
University since 2007 and similarly Laxmi Chandravanshi Kanya
Uchch Vidyalay has also been recognized by the State Government
since 2006 onwards. It is also averred that similar prayer had been
made in W.P. (PIL) No. 7065 of 2016, however, this petition was not
entertained on the ground that it involved complex factual issues and
dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2018. This respondent has lastly
sought leave of this Court to file/produce para-wise reply to the instant
petition as and when the same is required.
17. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the said counter affidavit
wherein he has not denied the allegations with respect to the criminal
case that is pending against him, however, in course of the argument, he
has submitted that he has recently been acquitted in the said case. He
has also not denied the fact that he was never nominated as a Member
of the District Level DISHA Committee, Garhwa, by the Ministry of
Rural Development, but would contend that since within few months of
recommendation tenure of the 7th Lok Sabha came to end leading to the
dissolution of the District Level DISHA Committee, he was not
appointed.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
18. Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the questions of
maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation petition in this Court
which are governed by Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Rules, 2010. Rule 4 thereof reads as under:-
"4. The petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation shall state
in clear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the
petition and grounds in paragraph-2 thereof. In paragraph-
3, the petitioner shall give his/her full and complete details
so as to reveal his/her interest, credentials and
qualifications relevant for the Public Interest Litigation,
along with a declaration that he/she has no personal
interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of Public
Interest Litigation. In addition, the petitioner shall set out all
relevant facts along with available supporting data, reports
etc."
19. As observed above, the petitioner claims to have filed this
petition as pro bono publico which the respondents claim to have been
filed with an oblique motive. Therefore, this Court is firstly required to
satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner, the prima facie
correctness of the information given by him, because, after all the
attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used for
suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of
genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or
founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms
who monitor at times from behind. The common rule of locus standi in
such cases is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the
grievances complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive, deprivation,
illiterate and the disabled and who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or
legal right. But, then while protecting the rights of the people from
being violated in any manner, utmost care has to be taken that the Court
does not transgress its jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which
are motivated. After all, public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea
for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of
the weak and disadvantaged.
20. 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 public interest seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law
for delivering justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by
promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for
this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering
for the sake of justice and refuse to entertain where it is against the
social justice and public good.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
21. In the case of Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. The State of West
Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
follows -
"18... It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this
Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule
must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging
in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant
must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a
knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing
publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to
espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to
the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking
a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the
issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can
be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information
without proper research or by persons who are not qualified
and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a
petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be
borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the
locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it
is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the
competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in
public interest and is not moved by other extraneous
considerations. So also the Court must be careful to ensure
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a
person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost
carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of
petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as
concluding the point. We say this because when drew the
attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court,
he brushed them aside, without so much as showing
willingness to deal with them and without giving them a
second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by
passage of time and challenged their correctness on the
specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for
saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to
the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to
considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-
versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as
pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no
bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter
cases, freedom of speech and expression, uniform evil code,
etc, we need say no more except to point out that
indiscriminate use of this important lever of public interest
litigation would blunt the lever itself."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mr 'X' v. Hospital 'Z' (1998) 8
SCC 296 held as follows:-
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
"15. "Right" is an interest recognised and protected by
moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which
would be a legal wrong. Respect for such interest would be
a legal duty. That is how Salmond has defined "right". In
order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a
legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but
also legal recognition. The elements of a "legal right" are
that the "right" is vested in a person and is available
against a person who is under a corresponding obligation
and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from
acting in a manner so as to prevent the violation of the right.
If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a person, the
latter can seek its protection against a person who is bound
by a corresponding duty not to violate that right."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in BALCO Employees' Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 held as under:-
"77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more
commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in
1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the
Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there
was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to
vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights
of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or
economically disadvantageous position and were unable to
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was
not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a
cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the
court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker
sections of the community who were not in a position to
protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was
intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves
said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public".
24. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349,
the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering few decisions on the aspect
of public interest litigation observed as follows:-
"4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a
public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to
foster personal disputes, the 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". If not properly
regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in
unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak
vengeance as well. There must be real and genuine public
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
interest involved in the litigation and not merely an
adventure of a knight errant or poke one's nose into for a
probe. 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 Janata Dal
case [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] and Kazi
Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation [1994
Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 873] . 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 v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2)
SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852] and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M.
Premchand [(1994) 6 SCC 620] .
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the
expression "public interest litigation". In Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary, Vol. 4, 4th Edn., "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."
6. In Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., "public interest" is
defined as follows:
"Public interest.--Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as
mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular
localities, which may be affected by the matters in
question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs
of local, State or national Government."
7. In Janata Dal case [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
36] this Court considered the scope of public interest
litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
what is public interest, the Court has laid down as follows :
(SCC p. 331)
"53. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action
including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of
law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a
remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression 'PIL' means
a 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."
8. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was
pointed out as follows : (SCC p. 334)
"62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise 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."
9. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been
pointed out as follows : (SCC pp. 345-46)
"98. 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
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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 busybody
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."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was
observed as follows : (SCC p. 348, para 109)
"109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
PIL will alone have a 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."
11. 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 genuine litigants. Though we spare
no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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, unrepresented 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 and
facing the gallows under untold agony, 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,
detenus 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 the glare of
publicity break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the
mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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 court
never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in
the minds of genuine litigants and resultantly, they lose faith
in the administration of our judicial system.
12. 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 armoury of law for delivering social
justice to 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 a member of
the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and
not for personal gain or private motive or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must
not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in
the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated
by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The
petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with
exemplary costs.
13. The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
Foundation in USA defined "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 that provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such
efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that
ordinary marketplace 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."
14. The court has to be satisfied about : (a) the credentials
of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of
information given by him; and (c) the information being not
vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity
and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance
between two conflicting interests : (i) nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
besmirching the character of others; and (ii) 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.
15. 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 v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 676 : (1994) 27 ATC 116] and A.P. State Financial
Corpn. v. Gar Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC 647 : 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
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
justice should not be misused as a licence to file
misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See Buddhi Kota
Subbarao (Dr) v. K. Parasaran [(1996) 5 SCC 530 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 1038 : JT (1996) 7 SC 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.
16. 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 a large number of so-called public
interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can
legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the
parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated
by this Court in a 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 Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802 :
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 continues unabated in the courts
and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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.
Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the
petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be
desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions
and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the
message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with
oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.
17. ..........
18. In Gupta case [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. It has also left the
following note of caution : (SCC p. 219, para 24)
"24. But we must be careful to see that the member of
the public, who approaches the court in cases of this
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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."
19. In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical
College [(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.
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment
in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. [(1987) 2 SCC 295]
(SCC at p. 331) said:
"Today public-spirited litigants rush to courts to file
cases in profusion under this attractive name. They
must inspire confidence in courts and among the public.
They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46)
***
Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one
is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public
alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or
reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear
guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for
entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict
the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the
courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to
take upon themselves administrative and executive
functions. (SCC p. 334, para 59)
***
I will be second to none in extending help when such
help is required. But this does not mean that the doors
of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It
is necessary to have some self-imposed restraint on
public interest litigants. (SCC p. 335, para 61)"
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for
the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of
India [1989 Supp (1) SCC 251] was in full agreement with
the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey
case [(1987) 2 SCC 295] and added that "public interest
litigation" is an instrument of the administration of justice
to be used properly in proper cases. [See also separate
judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC
(L&S) 389] .]
22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan
Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] expressed his view that the
application of a busybody should be rejected at the
threshold in the following terms : (SCC p. 683, para 37)
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
"37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to
apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may
ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person
aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or
meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are
easily distinguishable from those coming under the first
two categories. Such persons interfere in things which
do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders
for 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. They indulge in the
pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by
force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants
in this category, may be no more than spoking the
wheels of administration. The High Court should do
well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the
threshold."
23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] in stronger
terms stated : (SCC p. 589, para 48)
"48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious
intervener without any interest or concern beyond what
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this
country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him."
24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State
of U.P. [(1990) 4 SCC 449] Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J.
observed : (SCC p. 452, para 8)
"While it is the duty of this Court to enforce
fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to
ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be
misused or permitted to be misused creating a
bottleneck in the superior court preventing other
genuine violation of fundamental rights being
considered by the court."
25. In Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India [(1991) 4
SCC 584] (SCC at p. 610) Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his
separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of
the majority judgment has said thus : (SCC p. 610, para 21)
"I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public
activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause
of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such
activity and nothing perhaps should be done which
would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down
the serviceability of the institution to the people at
large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence
and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
an obligation to the community of educating it properly
and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."
26. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1991) 1 SCC 598]
it was observed as follows : (SCC pp. 604-05, para 7)
"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a
person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal
grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32
are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of
the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine
petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be
enforced through the process of this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public
interest litigation. Public interest litigation
contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or
enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of
persons or community which are not able to enforce
their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity,
poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must
approach this Court for the vindication of the
fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the
purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or
enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such
petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for
personal matters under the garb of the public interest
litigation."
27. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the courts
must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations" or
in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the
busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself" and as
Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the courts
should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants".
25. In Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Others, (2004) 3 SCC 363,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
"12. 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 armoury of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be allowed to 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, courts must be careful to see that a body of
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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 consideration. 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by
rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with
exemplary costs."
26. In R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group
and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-
"23. Next question is whether such public interest litigation
should at all be entertained and laches thereon. This
sacrosanct jurisdiction of public interest litigation should be
invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and
not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake
of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.
24. Public interest litigation is no doubt a very useful handle
for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it
has brought a very bad name. Courts should be very very
slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest : in
very rare cases where the public at large stand to suffer.
This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the
rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of
serving private ends. It has now become common for
unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and
jeopardise the rights of innocent people so as to wreak
vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very
handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts.
In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilise the
service of the innocent people or organisation in filing
public interest litigation. The courts are sometimes
persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding
the implications and giving a handle in the hands of the
authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not
exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very
rare and few cases involving public interest of a large
number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made
to suffer at the hands of the authorities. The parameters
have already been laid down in a decision of this Court in
the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of
India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] wherein this Court has issued
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
guidelines as to what kind of public interest litigation should
be entertained and all the previous cases were reviewed by
this Court. It was observed as under : (SCC pp. 376-77,
paras 77-80)
"77. Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more
commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in
1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily
the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as
there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was
intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental
and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant
or in socially or economically disadvantageous position
and were unable to seek legal redress were required to
be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in
nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative
effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice
for the poor and the weaker sections of the community
who were not in a position to protect their own
interests. Public interest litigation was intended to
mean nothing more than what words themselves said
viz. 'litigation in the interest of the public'.
78. While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases
connected with the relief to the people and the weaker
sections of the society and in areas where there was
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
violation of human rights under Article 21, but with the
passage of time, petitions have been entertained in
other spheres, Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarised the
extent of the jurisdiction which has now been exercised
in the following words:
'PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying
one or more of the following parameters. These
are not exclusive but merely descriptive:
-- Where the concerns underlying a
petition are not individualist but are
shared widely by a large number of people
(bonded labour, undertrial prisoners,
prison inmates).
-- Where the affected persons belong to
the disadvantaged sections of society
(women, children, bonded labour,
unorganised labour etc.).
-- Where judicial law-making is necessary
to avoid exploitation (inter-country
adoption, the education of the children of
prostitutes).
-- Where judicial intervention is necessary
for the protection of the sanctity of
democratic institutions (independence of
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
the judiciary, existence of grievances
redressal forums).
-- Where administrative decisions related
to development are harmful to the
environment and jeopardise people's right
to natural resources such as air or water.'
79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not
without any foundation that public interest litigation is
now tending to become publicity interest litigation or
private interest litigation and has a tendency to be
counterproductive.
80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was
essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the
weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure
which was innovated where a public-spirited person
files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who
on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and
social disabilities could not approach the court for
relief. There have been in recent times, increasingly
instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to
re-emphasise the parameters within which PIL can be
resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court.
This aspect has come up for consideration before this
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Court and all we need to do is to recapitulate and re-
emphasise the same."
27. In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2005) 5 SCC
136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public
interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly
in matters involving service of an employee has been
examined by this Court in various cases. The Court has to
be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the
prima facie correctness or nature of information given by
him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The
information should show gravity and seriousness involved.
Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests
: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
reckless allegations besmirching the character of others;
and (ii) 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 impostors and
busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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.
6. xxx xxx xxx
7. As noted supra, the 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 a large number of so-called public
interest litigations where only 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 a large number of cases, yet
unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts
are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial
time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for
disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu
(Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273 : 1998
SCC (L&S) 1802 : 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 continues 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
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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.
Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the
petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be
desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions
and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the
message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with
oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.
8. xxx xxx xxx
9. 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, unrepresented and unheard; yet
we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters
involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees
and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death facing the 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 tax cases wherein huge amounts of
public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts
are locked up, detenus 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 real 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 muffling their faces by
wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into
the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of
luxury litigants who have nothing to lose but trying to gain
for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of
the courts and as a result of which the queue standing
outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine
litigants.
10. 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 armoury of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be allowed to 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 the public, who approaches the court
is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private
motive or political motivation or other oblique
consideration. 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 as to enrich
themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such
busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the
threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
28. In Kushum Lata v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 6 SCC
180, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
"5. When there is material to show that a petition styled as
a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to
foster personal disputes, the 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 wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real
and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not
merely an adventure of a 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. The courts of justice
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
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 Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri)
36] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. CBI [1994 Supp (2) SCC 116
: 1994 SCC (Cri) 873] . 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 v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR
1993 SC 852] and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand [(1994)
6 SCC 620] .)"
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Regd.
Society) v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 511, observed
as under:-
"59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being
entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that
the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary
has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware
case [(2005) 1 SCC 590 : AIR 2005 SC 540] public interest
litigation has nowadays largely become "publicity interest
litigation", "private interest litigation", or "politics interest
litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation".
Much of PIL is really blackmail.
60. Thus, public interest litigation which was initially
created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker
section of society who could not afford to come to courts,
has, in course of time, largely developed into an
uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is
threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts
obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases
which have been waiting to be taken up for years together."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal
v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402,
in paragraphs 178, 179, 180 and 181, laid down the following
guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation:-
"178. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not
discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner,
what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse.
According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a
large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
been given by the courts for improving ecology and
environment, and the directions helped in preservation of
forests, wildlife, marine life, etc. etc. It is the bounden duty
and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide
PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public
interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and
the laws.
179. The public interest litigation, which has been in
existence in our country for more than four decades, has a
glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their
judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number
of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with
the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of
marginalised and vulnerable section of society have
significantly improved on account of Courts' directions in
PIL.
180. In our considered view, now it has become imperative
to streamline the PIL.
181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present
case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court
and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to
preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become
imperative to issue the following directions:
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona
fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL
filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising
his own procedure for dealing with the public interest
litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court
to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine
PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique
motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the
rules within three months. The Registrar General of
each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the
rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the
Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the
credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied
regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition
before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that
substantial public interest is involved before
entertaining the petition.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition
which involves larger public interest, gravity and
urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL
should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of
genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should
also ensure that there is no personal gain, private
motive or oblique motive behind filing the public
interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the
petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior
motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary
costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb
frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous
considerations."
31. In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan
and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 530, a Bench comprising of three Hon'ble
Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"49. The concept of public interest litigation is a
phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of
people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence,
illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public
interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not
able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
public interest litigation, we are coming across several
cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain
individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful
while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary
should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with
iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be
misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely,
to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be
defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified
litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who
misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the
realm of public interest litigation, the courts while
protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the
same time have to look at the effective way in which the
relief can be granted to the people whose rights are
adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be
protected and the controversy or the dispute can be
adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular
statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate
forum instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as public
interest litigation."
32. To similar effect is another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
Union of India and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 780 wherein it was
observed as under:-
"29. Why are the Action Plan and these directions
necessary? We seem to be forgetting the power of public
interest litigation and therefore need to remind ourselves,
from time to time, of its efficacy in providing social justice.
Many years ago, this Court noted in People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India [People's Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 :
1982 SCC (L&S) 275] that: (SCC p. 240, para 2)
"2. ... Public interest litigation is brought before
the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of
one individual against another as happens in the case
of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and
vindicate public interest which demands that violations
of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of
people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or
economically disadvantaged position should not go
unnoticed and unredressed. That would be destructive
of the rule of law which forms one of the essential
elements of public interest in any democratic form of
Government."
A little later in the judgment, it was said: (SCC pp. 242-43,
para 3)
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
"3. ... Millions of persons belonging to the
deprived and vulnerable sections of humanity are
looking to the courts for improving their life conditions
and making basic human rights meaningful for them.
They have been crying for justice but their cries have so
far been in the wilderness. They have been suffering
injustice silently with the patience of a rock, without the
strength even to shed any tears."
30. The advantage of public interest litigation is not only to
empower the economically weaker sections of society but
also to empower those suffering from social disabilities that
may not necessarily be of their making. The widows of
Vrindavan (and indeed in other ashrams) quite clearly fall
in this category of a socially disadvantaged class of our
society.
31. Placing empowerment in perspective, this Court noted
in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] that (at
SCC p. 427, para 43) the first phase of public interest
litigation concerned itself primarily with the protection of
the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution
of "the marginalised groups and sections of the society who
because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
approach this Court or the High Courts". We may add--the
socially underprivileged groups. These are the people who
have no real access to justice and in that sense are
voiceless, and these are the people who need to be
empowered and whose cause needs to be championed by
those who advocate social justice for the disadvantaged.
32. This recognition formed the basis of the decision of this
Court in Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity
& Rights of Sewerage & Allied Workers [Delhi Jal
Board v. National Campaign for Dignity & Rights of
Sewerage & Allied Workers, (2011) 8 SCC 568 : (2011) 2
SCC (L&S) 375] wherein providing succour to the deprived
sections of society was recognised as a "constitutional
duty" of this Court. Referring to several judgments delivered
by this Court, it was observed: (SCC p. 590, para 31)
"31. These judgments are a complete answer to
the appellant's objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition filed by Respondent 1. What the High
Court has done by entertaining the writ petition and
issuing directions for protection of the persons
employed to do work relating to sewage operations is
part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged
and poor sections of the society. We may add that the
superior courts will be failing in their constitutional
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by
genuine social groups, NGOs and social workers for
espousing the cause of those who are deprived of the
basic rights available to every human being, what to
say of fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial constituent of
the State like its political and executive constituents to
protect the rights of every citizen and every individual
and ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity."
33. It would thus be clear that Public Interest Litigation can only be
entertained at the instance of a bonafide litigant and cannot be used by
unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievance as a
Public Interest Litigation. The instant petition fails to qualify the above
parameters.
34. It has repeatedly come to the notice not only of this Court, but
also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a lot of misuse of Public
Interest Litigation, which now is a serious matter of concern for the
judicial process.
35. We need not multiply or make reference to a large number of
judgments in this regard and reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered by three Hon'ble Judges' Bench in this regard
shall suffice.
36. In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and Another (2018)
6 SCC 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
object of a Public Interest Litigation and its mis-utilization by persons
with personal agenda observed as under:-
"Public interest litigation
96. Public interest litigation has developed as a
powerful tool to espouse the cause of the marginalised and
oppressed. Indeed, that was the foundation on which public
interest jurisdiction was judicially recognised in situations
such as those in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India [Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3
SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389] . Persons who were
unable to seek access to the judicial process by reason of
their poverty, ignorance or illiteracy are faced with a
deprivation of fundamental human rights. Bonded labour
and undertrials (among others) belong to that category. The
hallmark of a public interest petition is that a citizen may
approach the court to ventilate the grievance of a person or
class of persons who are unable to pursue their rights.
Public interest litigation has been entertained by relaxing
the rules of standing. The essential aspect of the procedure
is that the person who moves the court has no personal
interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from a
general standing as a citizen before the court. This ensures
the objectivity of those who pursue the grievance before the
court. Environmental jurisprudence has developed around
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
the rubric of public interest petitions. Environmental
concerns affect the present generation and the future.
Principles such as the polluter pays and the public trust
doctrine have evolved during the adjudication of public
interest petitions. Over time, public interest litigation has
become a powerful instrument to preserve the rule of law
and to ensure the accountability of and transparency within
structures of governance. Public interest litigation is in that
sense a valuable instrument and jurisdictional tool to
promote structural due process.
97. Yet over time, it has been realised that this
jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly
misutilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of
that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions
are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end
of the spectrum are petitions which have been instituted at
the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores
behind the facade of a public interest litigation. The true
face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled.
These concerns are indeed reflected in the judgment of this
Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal [State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal,
(2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(L&S) 807] . Underlining these concerns, this Court held
thus : (SCC p. 453, para 143)
"143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed
that such an important jurisdiction which has been
carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great
care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly
abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives.
We think time has come when genuine and bona fide
public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas
frivolous public interest litigation should be
discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to
protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the
larger interest of the people of this country but we must
take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the
basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the
courts."
37. The aforesaid observations were relied upon and reiterated by
another Hon'ble three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Re: Prashant Bhushan and Anr., Suo Motu Contempt Petition,
2020 SCC OnLine SC 698.
38. From the aforesaid exposition of law, it can safely be concluded
that the Court would allow litigation in public interest only if it is
found:-
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any
other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;
(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala
fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a
position to protect their own interest on account of
poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching
the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury
arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of
some provision of the Constitutional law;
(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or
a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with
mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance
or grievance;
(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being
abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or
unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State
or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;
(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that
if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the
common man in the institution of the judiciary and the
democratic set up of the country;
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
(vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under
the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;
(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a
petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information
received but upon satisfaction that the information laid
before the Court was of such a nature which required
examination;
(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with
clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;
(x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court
must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by
any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or
persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for
vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to
black-mailing or considerations extraneous to public
interest.
39. Evidently, even though the petitioner has claimed to have filed
this petition in public interest, but he has not disclosed and has rather
deliberately withheld his complete credentials and interest as is
mandatorily required under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public
Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. The petitioner was required to disclose
the criminal case that was admittedly pending against him at the time of
filing of the petition. The mere fact that he has been acquitted later on is
of no consequence.
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
40. Apart from the above, we find that the petitioner has his own axe
to grind and wants to settle his political score by filing of instant
petition as he appears to be a political rival of the respondent no.7.
Clearly the petition cannot in any terms be said to be a bona fide, rather
the same is mischievous and therefore amounts to a gross abuse of the
process of the Court. The petitioner clearly lacks locus standi being a
political rival of the respondent no.7 and by filing the instant petition
has shown his oblique motive.
41. This Court in such circumstances has to act ruthlessly while
dealing with such imposters, busybodies and meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men. The petitioner cannot
masquerade as a crusader of justice and is only pretending to act in the
name of Pro Bono Publico, though he has no interest of the public to
protect. The instant petition under ploy to achieve for achieving oblique
motives.
42. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. SAIL,
(2008) 12 SCC 481, has categorically held that a litigant approaching
the court must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts,
failing which the proceedings are liable to be dismissed.
43. Furthermore, in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India,
(2007) 8 SCC 449, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that "a litigant
who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents
relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document, then he must
suffer the consequences." The Court further emphasized that the
Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:33563-DB
principle of uberrima fides (utmost good faith) applies to litigants
invoking constitutional or equitable jurisdiction.
44. That applying the above principles, it is clear that the petitioner
has abused the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by initiating a proxy
litigation under the guise of public interest, while harbouring
undisclosed private motives. This Writ Petition, being founded on
suppression, falsehood, and mala fide intent, is thus liable to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this writ petition is not
maintainable as the same is mischievous and has only resulted in
wastage of Court's precious time, which could have been better utilized
in disposal of the cases of genuine litigants.
46. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. Out of this amount,
Rs.1,00,000/- would be paid to the respondent no.7, while, the
remaining Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the Advocates Clerk Welfare
Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, within three months from today.
47. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
th
November 11 , 2025
A.F.R.
Manoj/Cp.2
