Madras High Court
A.Arthur vs Church Of South India on 19 December, 2022
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.22490 of 2022
A.Arthur ... Petitioner
vs.
1 The Regional Director,
Office of the Regional Director Southern Region,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India, 5th Floor A Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 6.
2 The Registrar,
Office of the Registrar of Companies,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
3 The Director of Collegiate Education,
E.V.K Sampath Building, 9th Floor,
Chennai - 6.
4 The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai - 6.
5 The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
6 Church of South India Trust Association, (CSI TA),
Represented by its Treasurer,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
7 Church of South India (CSI)
Represented by its Moderator,
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
8 The General Secretary
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod, Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
9 Rt. Rev. A. Dharmaraj Rasalam,
The Moderator,
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod Secretariat,
Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
10 Church of South India,
Trichy – Tanjore Diocese,
Represented by its Bishop / Chariman,
Allithurai Road, Pudhur,
Trichy, Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of declaration, declaring the Special Diocesan
counsel meeting held on 03.12.2022 at Bishop Heber College, Puthur,
Tiruchirappalli contrary to the Constitution of the Church of South India and
violating existing the rules and regulations by the 10th respondent and
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
consequently set aside the resolution as passed in the said council meeting
in the said date forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham
For RR 3 to 5 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
For RR 6 to 10 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance
of a Writ of Declaration, to declare the Special Diocesan council meeting
held on 03.12.2022 at Bishop Heber College, Puthur, Tiruchirappalli contrary
to the Constitution of the Church of South India and violating the existing
rules and regulations by the 10th respondent and consequently set aside the
resolution passed in the said council meeting in the said date forthwith.
2.The petitioner, who is one of the members of St. John's, the Baptist
Church, Athanur Pastorate and also an elected Diocesan Counsel/Executive
committee member of the 10th respondent diocese, has filed the instant Writ
Petition as a 'Public Interest Litigation'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
3.According to the petitioner, he has filed the present writ
petition to declare the Special Diocesan Council meeting held on 03.12.2022
and for violating the rules and regulations by the 10th respondent.
4.On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the dispute is
purely a private dispute and there is no ingredients for entertaining the
present Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation.
5.At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the following
observation made by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State
of West Bengal and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex
Court at paragraphs 5 to 16, held as follows:-
“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’.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
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 52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public
interest, this Court has laid down as follows:
“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 para 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as
follows:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
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) “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 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:
“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 the genuine litigants. Though we spare no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
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 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
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 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 courts never moves,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the
genuine litigants and resultantly they loose 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 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
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. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling
with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper
motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or
cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
“Public interest law is the name that has recently been given
to efforts which 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 a 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
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) 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 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.
Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of
public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep
themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having
really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and
smirch the solemnity of court proceedings. 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,
whereas 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts
at times 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, this Court held that in
service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of the
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.
This tendency is being slowly permitted to percolate for setting in
motion criminal law jurisdiction, often unjustifiably just for gaining
publicity and giving adverse publicity to their opponents. 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.
Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the
real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find
out whether it was a bona fide venture. 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,
as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved,
and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has
not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes
imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. 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.”
6. Public interest litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction
exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Apex Court in
Neetu v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 614, held that when a particular
person is the object and target of a petition styled as public interest
litigation, the Court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise
of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal
grouse or some other mala fide object.
7. That apart, in State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao
Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
"13. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL,
however, there must be sufficient material in the petition
on the basis of which the court may proceed.
The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his
averments on the basis of which such a person claims the
reliefs. The information furnished by him should not be
vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice.
Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the court to have
a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a
chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of
the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously.
Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed
generously as he lacks the standard of accuracy and
precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a
determinate class.”
8. The petitioner, being an aggrieved person, has filed the present
Writ Petition, which is styled as 'Public Interest Litigation', is clearly an
abuse of process of Court.
9. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ
Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.]
Index : Yes / No 19.12.2022
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
To
1 The Regional Director,
Office of the Regional Director Southern Region,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Government of India, 5th Floor A Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road,
Chennai – 6.
2 The Registrar,
Office of the Registrar of Companies,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
3 The Director of Collegiate Education,
E.V.K Sampath Building, 9th Floor,
Chennai - 6.
4 The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai - 6.
5 The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai.
6 Church of South India Trust Association, (CSI TA),
Represented by its Treasurer,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
7 Church of South India (CSI)
Represented by its Moderator,
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
8 The General Secretary
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod, Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah,
Chennai - 14.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
9 Rt. Rev. A. Dharmaraj Rasalam,
The Moderator,
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod Secretariat,
Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
10 Church of South India,
Trichy – Tanjore Diocese,
Represented by its Bishop / Chariman,
Allithurai Road, Pudhur,
Trichy, Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
D. KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.28486 of 2022
DATED : 19.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
