http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (civil) 26269 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware

RESPONDENT:

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2004

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of CC No. 11374 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession

and is almost a black spot on the noble profession. The petitioner who

belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as "Public Interest

Litigation" before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the

impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was

no public interest involved and in fact the petitioner had resorted to

black mailing respondent nos. 6 and 7 and was caught red handed

accepting "black mailing" money. The High Court also noticed that the

allegations of unauthorized constructions made in the petition were

also not true.

Cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was

levied, was directed to be paid to the affected respondent nos. 6 and 7

before the High Court.

It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed professionals, if

the allegation, as found by the High Court to be true and which

presently appear to be the subject matter of further proceedings in a

criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal

profession black faced for the black deed of the petitioner who may be

as the High Court found a black sheep in the profession. Though the

petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive brand name of

"Public Interest Litigation", the least that can be said is that it

smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation should not

be.

When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public

interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal

disputes, 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 last category. If not properly

regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous

hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be

real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not

merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It

cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

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 The

Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji

vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). 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 vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v.

R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).

It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public

interest litigation'. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV

Edition), '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."

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is

defined as follows:

"Public Interest something in which the public, or

some interest by which their legal rights or

liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything

the particular localities, which may be affected by

the matters in question. Interest shared by

national government...."

In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of

public interest litigation. In para 52 of the said judgment, after

considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows:

"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action

including all proceedings therein initiated in a

Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking

a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL"

means the 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."

In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out

as follows:

"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis 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."

In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

as follows:

"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 busy body 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."

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 as 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".

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, un-represented 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 facing 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 cases wherein huge amounts of public

revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu

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 glare of publicity break the queue

muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation

and get into the Courts by 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 Courts never

moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the

genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the

administration of our judicial system.

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 armory of law

for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

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 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 considerations. 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 busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the

threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation

in USA defined the "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 provide legal representation

to previously unrepresented groups and interests.

Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition

that ordinary market place 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."

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

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.

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 vs. Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra

Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and

Anr., (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

Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996 (7) JT 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.

As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something

else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number

of so called public interest litigations where even 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 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 Dr.

Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (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 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 the

truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas,

as noted, 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 afore-stated so that the

message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique

motive do not have the approval of the Courts.

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (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. He has also left the following note of caution:

(SCC p.219, para 24)

"But we must be careful to see that the member of

the public, who approaches the court in cases of

this 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."

In State of H.P. vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College,

Simla and Ors. (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.

These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v.

State of West Bengal (2004 (3) SCC 349) and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of

India & Ors. (2004 (3) SCC 363).

It is disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure

by the Bar Councils and the Bar Association to see that the process of

law is not abused and polluted by its member. It is high time that the

Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar

becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files

frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of "Public

Interest Litigation". That will be keeping in line with the high

traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to

the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already

imposed costs of Rs.25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further

cost.

Let copy of this judgment be sent to Bar Council of India and the

Supreme Court Bar Association by the Registry for necessary action.

The petition deserves to be dismissed, which we direct.