http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 122 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Dr. B. Singh

RESPONDENT:

Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2004

BENCH:

DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(D. No.305/2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

This petition filed purportedly under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution')

shows to what extent the process of law can be abused. It

carries the attractive brand name of "public interest

litigation", but the least that can be said is that it

smacks of everything what a public interest litigation

should not be.

The petition is purported to have been filed

questioning the propriety of respondent No.3 being

considered for appointment as a Judge. Subsequently, an

application was filed for permission to withdraw the

petition with liberty to file a fresh petition as in the

meantime respondent No.3 has been appointed as a Judge.

Before we go into the desirability of even entertaining

such a petition, background in which the petition has been

filed needs to be noticed.

According to the petitioner, as reflected in the

petition, basis of the petition is a copy of the

representation purported to have been received from one Ram

Sarup which was addressed to the President of India with

copies to the Chief Justice of India, Ministry of Law and

Justice, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court,

Governor of Haryana and Bar Council of India wherein

allegations were made against respondent No.3. Only on the

basis of what is stated therein of which apparently the

petitioner himself cannot legitimately claim to have any

personal knowledge the petitioner filed a writ petition

before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was

dismissed. The petitioner makes a grievance that aforesaid

Ram Sarup had received acknowledgement of the representation

addressed to the President of India wherein it was also

noted that the same had been forwarded to the Secretary to

the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and

Company Affairs (Department of Legal Affairs) for

appropriate action. But no action was taken to look into the

allegations. It is not clear from the writ petition as to

whether the petitioner had sent any representation to the

President and other constitutional functionaries as the

enclosures to the writ petition show that aforesaid Ram

Sarup had sent representations to the President with copies

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9

to the other functionaries. The copy of the representation

dated 18.10.2003 shows that it was sent by Ram Sarup. The

second representation is dated 13.12.2003 in which reference

has been made to a representation purported to be dated

28.11.2003. In the representation dated 13.12.2003 reference

is made to the acknowledgement dated 12.11.2003. This

creates an impression that the acknowledgment dated

12.11.2003, of the President's Secretariat relates to the

representations sent by Ram Sarup. But the copy of purported

acknowledgement filed as Annexure P-2 shows as if it was

sent by the petitioner. No copy of any representation dated

28.10.2003 as indicated in Annexure P-2 has been filed along

with the petition. The petitioner nowhere has stated that

he has any personal knowledge of the allegations made

against respondent No.3. He does not even aver that he made

any effort to find out whether the allegations have any

basis. He only refers to the representation of Ram Sarup and

some paper cuttings of news items. He has not indicated as

to whether he was aware of the authenticity or otherwise of

the news items. It is too much to attribute authenticity or

credibility to any information or fact merely because, it

found publication in a newspaper or journal or Magazine or

any other form of communication, as though it is gospel

truth. It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per

se do not constitute legally acceptable evidence. Strangely,

in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition he has

stated as follows:

"That I have read over the

contents of accompanying writ petition

page No. 1 to 13 para, Para No. 1 to

18, synopsis and list of dates, page A

to C and I say that the same are true

and correct on knowledge and based on

the record of the case".

The affidavit shows that the contents were true and correct

to his knowledge and based on records. Strangely, it has

not been indicated as to what is the source of his

knowledge and are based on what records. Even the copy of

the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court where

he filed writ application on allegedly identical issues, as

indicated in the petition, has not been annexed. The casual

and cavalier fashion it appears to have been handled and of

late attempted to be made ipse dixit, in a laconic and

lackadaisical manner compels to draw the only inference

that the petitioner is a busy body bent upon self publicity

sans any sense of responsibility unmindful of the adverse

impact, at times it may go to create at the expense of

decency and dignity of constitutional offices and

functionaries and there is no element or even trace of

public interest involved in the petition.

When there is material to show that a petition styled

as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage

to foster personal disputes or vendatta to bring to terms a

person, not of ones liking, or gain publicity or a facade

for blackmail, said petition has to be thrown out. Before

we grapple with the issues involved in the present case, we

feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the

"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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9

interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income

litigation". If not properly and strictly regulated at

least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted it

becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release

vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well to malign not only an

incumbent to be in office but demoralise and deter

reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to

accept highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of

being brought into disrepute with baseless allegations.

There must be real and genuine public interest involved in

the litigation and concrete or credible basis for

maintaining a cause before court 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 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. The credibility

of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the

creditworthiness of the materials, averred and not even on

the credentials claimed of the person moving the courts in

such cases. 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 and Ors. (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 vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).

It is necessary to take note of the meaning of

expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds

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's case (supra) this Court considered the

scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said

judgment, after considering what is public interest, has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9

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 para 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 98 of the said judgment, it has further been

pointed out 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9

long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the

oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are

infringed and violated and whose grievance 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 substantial rights

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 tax

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 busy bodies, 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 muffing 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 loose 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 situation creates

frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.

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 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 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 moniter 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9

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

busy bodies 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

drought 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. 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 really inspire confidence in

Courts and among the public, failing which such litigation

should be axed with heavy hand and dire consequences.

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 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 large number

of 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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9

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. 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 copters, 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 show 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 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 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 and Anr. (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. The following note of caution was given: (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.

Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in

Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of W.B., (1987 (2) SCC 295,

331) said:

"Today public spirited litigants rush to

courts to file cases in profusion under this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9

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 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)

These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar

Pandey v. The State of West Bengal (2003 (8) Supreme 299)

Procedure for appointment of a Judge is provided in

Article 217 of the Constitution. The process is an

elaborate one and involves the views of the collegium of

the Court. Where a particular person is to be appointed as

a Judge, the modalities and procedures to be adopted have

been elaborately dealt with in Special Reference No.1 of

1998, Re: (1998 (7) SCC 739). The scope of judicial review

has been specifically delienated, limiting it to want of

consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or

lack or any condition of eligibility and not on any other

ground including that of bias which is in any case is

excluded by the element of plurality in the process of

decision-making. The view in Supreme Court Advocates-on-

Record Association and Ors. v. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC

441 (popularly known as Second Judges' case) was

reiterated. It would be proper to take note of very

significant observations made in the Second Judges' case

about the growing tendency of needless intrusion by

strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the

judiciary under the garb of public interest litigation, in

spite of the caution in S.P. Gupta's case (supra). The note

of caution has yielded no fruitful result and on the

contrary these busybodies continue to make reckless

allegations and vitriolic statements against Judges and

persons whose names are under consideration for judgeship.

Therefore, it has become imperative to take stern actions

against these persons. It is not the ipse dixit of any

individual to say as to whether the recommended person is

fit for appointment, by making wide allegations which has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9

become common these days and have resulted in delaying

appointment of Judges, though large number of vacancies

exist in different High Courts. All possible care and

caution is exercised before appointment of a Judge is made.

It is true that no system is infallible, but at the same

time the sinister design of people intended to thwart

prospects of a person likely to be appointed as a Judge has

to be nipped at the bud. The petitioner has not shown any

material to show that he is really interested in the

welfare of the judicial system or the institution of the

judiciary. As indicated above, he appears to be a busy

person seeking publicity and a person who has no genuine

concern for the institution, if such type of petitions are

permitted to be entertained it will cause immense damage to

the system itself. High sounding words used in the petition

about the desirability of a transparent judicial system

cannot in our view turn a mis-conceived petition filed with

oblique motives to be treated as a public interest

litigation. This petition deserves to be dismissed with

exemplary costs and we direct so. The petition though

deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- hoping

that the petitioner would mend his ways and would not

hazard such vexatious litigations in future dismiss the

same with costs of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner shall

deposit in the Registry of this Court within 6 weeks from

today. If deposit is made it shall be remitted to the

Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. In case the cost is

not deposited within the time stipulated, the Registry

shall forward this order to the Punjab and Haryana High

Court and the High Court shall have it recovered by

coercive means of recovery and remit the same to this

Court, which on receipt shall be paid to the Supreme Court

Legal Services Authority.