1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2022

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 10622-10623 OF 2022)

STATE OF JHARKHAND ... APPELLANT

Versus

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2022

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.11364-11365 OF 2022)

J U D G M E N T

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Leave granted.

1. The above two petitions have been filed before this Court by

the State of Jharkhand through the Resident Commissioner,

challenging the orders dated 03.06.2022 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand, where the

High Court has ordered that the PILs filed by respondent no.1

2

before the Jharkhand High Court are maintainable, and thus

the High Court decided to proceed with the matter on its

merits. The petitioner here poses a challenge to the very

maintainability of these two PILs. After hearing the parties at

length, this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2022 had

reserved its orders and directed that meanwhile the High

Court shall not proceed further with the matter.

2. The question before this Court is whether the petitions which

have been filed before the Jharkhand High Court in the form

of Public Interest Litigations are maintainable in view of the

settled position of law laid down by this Court in several of its

earlier decisions. The question is also whether these PILs

comply with the provisions of the Rules relating to the Public

Interest Litigations, which is the Jharkhand High Court (Public

Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (for short “Rules, 2010”) and if

they do not, were the petitions filed as PILs liable to be

dismissed at the very threshold if they were not in

compliance of the provisions of the above Rules relating to

PIL.

3. Two public interest litigations petitions were filed before the

Jharkhand High Court by the same person, i.e., Sri Shiv

3

Shankar Sharma. In the first Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of

2021 the following relief was sought: -

“A. For the direction upon the respondents

specially respondent’s especially respondent no.

3

1

to enquire into the money transferred of Soren

Family in the name of respondent no.’s, 8 to 13

and may also submit the report to Income Tax

Department as to how the companies which are 28

in numbers have been used as a parking place for

ill gotten money.

B. For the direction upon the respondent no. 3

to investigate the sources of income of respondent

no. 8 to 13 as because they being the close friends

of Hemant Soren and Basant Soren have invested

the money in number of companies as chain of

hotels as it is shown that the owner is Ranjan Sahu

and the Hotlips chain of hotels and restaurants

which was situated in a small area near the Chief

Minister's residents and later on removed have

transformed into six hotel chains situated at Kanke

Road, Ratan Lal Complex, Ratu Road, Lalpur,

Hinoo and Kamre.

C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 4

2

also to investigate the financial crime committed

by Hemant Soren which income has given to Ravi

Kejriwal as he is connected to him since childhood

and also having close connection with Ranjan

Sahu, the so called owner of Hotlips Chain of

hotels and restaurants and may also investigate as

at which point of time and place Mr. Hemant Soren

has committed illegality and earned crores of

rupees and invested in the name of these persons.

D. For the direction upon the respondent no. 5

to investigate the money trail of crime proceed

1

Respondent No.3 is the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2

Respondent No.4 is the Enforcement Directorate.

4

lying with respondent no. 8 to 13 and they have

amassed the huge wealth and returning the money

at the time of election to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha

headed by Hemant Soren.

E. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light

of the facts of this case.”

In the Second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 the

following relief was sought: -

“A. For the direction upon the respondent No.9 to

grant sanction for prosecution, to prosecute the

“The Chief Minister Cum, Minister Department of

Mines, for act of misuse of office and getting the

Mining Lease done in his own name, although, he

being a Departmental Minister/Chief Minister

cannot do business (Article 191(9) of Constitution)

of mining, and also committed criminal act, so he

is liable to be prosecuted under Section 7(A) and

13(I)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 &

Section 169 of IPC, and also to ca ncel his

membership of assembly of Jharkhand, and also

he has violated section 9 of the Peoples’

Representation Act, 1950 & lastly, he has

contravened the code of conduct framed by Union

Government for the Hon’ble Chief Minister &

Ministers of States.

B. For the direction upon the respondents

especially respondent No. 1, the Chief Secretary,

Jharkhand to protect the relevant file of

Department of Mines wherein, the mining lease of

Angadha Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No. 187, Plot

No. 482, Area 0.88 Acre for that Letter of intent

(LOI) was issued on 16.06.21, approval of mining

plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approved

on 09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent

No. 7 has given application, which was approved

5

in its 90

th

meeting dated 14-18 September, 2021,

within such a short time although, the SEIAA has

given environmental clearance to new High Court

building after so many months, ANDA, directions

may be issued to Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) &

Enforcement Directorate to investigate the crime

committed by respondent no. 7 & 8.

C. For the direction upon the respondent CBI

especially also to investigate the history illegal

mining committed by the person like the

respondent No. 7 and due to his influence, illegal

mining is done to public properties sold by Mr.

Soren against the provisions of law to himself only.

D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light

of the facts of this case.”

In both these writ petitions the respondents which, inter alia,

included the State of Jharkhand as well as the incumbent

Chief Minister, Mr. Hemant Soren. A preliminary objection as

to the maintainability of the writ petition was raised by these

two respondents. Objections were also raised that the writ

petitions do not disclose the particulars and credentials of the

petitioner nor does it follow the procedure as mandated by

the Rules, i.e., Rule 4, 4A, 4B,5 of the Rules, 2010.

4. Since, the Court nevertheless proceeded with the matter, the

petitioner had earlier filed a petition before this Court

challenging the proceedings before the Jharkhand High

6

Court in the form of these two Public Interest Litigations. The

matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court and the

following orders were passed on 24.05.2022 in SLP (C) Nos.

9728-9730 of 2022:

“A batch of three writ petitions is pending

before the Division Bench of the High Court of

Jharkhand:

(i) (In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4632

of 2019; the petitioner, Arun

Kumar Dubey, seeks, inter alia,

a direction to the Directorate of

Enforcement to investigate 15

FIRs pertaining to alleged

offences arising out of the

disbursement of MANREGA

funds to Khunti Zila Parishad

implicating offences under

Sections 406, 409, 420, 423,

429, 465 and 1208 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 11.

12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988;

(ii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of

2021; the petitioner, Shiv

Shankar Sharma seeks a

direction for an investigation

into the alleged transfer of SLP

Cr. 9729-9730/2022 monies by

the Soren family in the names

of respondent Nos 8 to 13

through the instrumentality of

certain shell companies; and

7

(iii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 727 of

2022; the petitioner Shiv

Shankar Sharma seeks a

direction for sanctioning the

prosecution of the Chief

Minister for obtaining a mining

lease in his own name

implicating offences under the

provisions of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and the

Indian Penal Code.

5. On 22 April 2022, when Writ Petition

(PIL) No 4290 of 2021 came up before a

Division Bench presided over by the Chief

justice, the Court recorded the submission of

the counsel for the State that "an identical writ

petition was dismissed with costs by this

Court filed by the same counsel and the

matter went up to the Supreme Court" where

the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

After issuing certain procedural directions for

the impleadement of the Registrar of

Companies, the Division Bench directed that

the proceedings in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290

of 2021 be placed along with the records of

Writ Petition (PIL) No 4218 of 2013 on 1.3 May

2022.

6. On 13 May, 2022, the High Court, inter

alia, noted the submissions of the State of

Jharkhand objecting to the maintainability of

the petition. This was dealt with in the

following extract:

"At this juncture, Mr Kapil Sibal,

learned Senior Advocate, appearing

for the State of Jharkhand, has made

a submission that he has to raise a

preliminary objection regarding the

maintainability of the case itself.

8

We would consider the preliminary

objection and then the merit also, if

required, on the next date of hearing"

7. The High Court posted the

proceedings on 17 May 2022. On 17 May

2022, the High Court, after perusing a

sealed cover which was tendered on

behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement,

noted the submission of the petitioner that

WP (PIL) No 4362 of 2019 may be placed

along side the petition which the High

Court was considering on the next date of

hearing and accordingly the proceedings

were adjourned to 19 May 2022. On 19

May 2022, the High Court has passed

separate orders in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos

727 of 2022, 4632 of 2019 and 4290 of 2021.

The High Court posted the proceedings on

24 May 2022.

8. The Special Leave Petitions have

been instituted by the State of Jharkhand in

order to challenge the orders dated 13

May 2022 and 17 May 2022 in Writ Petition

(PIL) No 4290 of 2021.

9. We have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the State of

Jharkhand, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth

respondent (Shri Hemant Soren) and Mr

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing

on behalf of the Central Bureau of

Investigation and the Directorate of

Enforcement.

10. The sequence of events narrated in

the earlier part of the present order

indicates that the High Court had, by its

9

order dated 13 May 2022, specifically

noted that it would consider the primary

objection to the maintainability of Writ

Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 and deal

with the merits thereafter, if required, on

the next date of hearing.

11. Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner has

adverted to the provisions of the

Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest

Litigation) Rules, 2010, more particularly

the provisions of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5.

12. Since the High Court has observed in

its order dated 13 May 2022 that it would

deal with the maintainability of the petition

upfront, we are of the considered view that

it would be appropriate in the interests of

justice that the Division Bench presided

over by the learned Chief justice does so

before without proceeding to the merits of

the public interest litigation.

13. The issue of maintainability should be

dealt with by the High Court on the next

date of listing when the proceedings are

taken up. Based on the outcome of the

objections to the maintainability of the

proceedings, the High Court may

thereafter proceed in accordance with

law.

14. The Special Leave Petitions are

disposed of in the above terms.

15. This Court has had no occasion to

deal with the merits of the rival

contentions which arise in the Special

Leave Petitions or nor has it become

necessary for this Court to express any

10

view on the allegations which are levelled

in the writ petition since that is a matter

which is pending consideration before the

High Court.

16. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.”

5. Thus, consequent to the orders of this Court dated

24.05.2022, the Jharkhand High Court before proceeding

with the matter had to first give its finding on the

maintainability of the two PILs. The High Court after

hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents has come

to a conclusion that an extremely serious matter has been

raised in the PILs, where there are allegations of large-

scale corruption at the hands of the present Chief Minister

of Jharkhand, and even though there may be some

procedural irregularities in filing of the public interest

litigations that should not come in the way of the Court in

entertaining the petition, which is in public interest.

Moreover, as to the Rules, (i.e., Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 of the

Rules, 2010) which we shall refer shortly, it has been held

that they are directory and not mandatory in nature.

Consequently, by order dated 03.06.2022 the Court has

held that the PILs are maintainable and shall be dealt on its

11

merit. This order has presently been challenged before

this Court.

6. As referred above we are concerned with two writ petitions

filed by the private respondent No.1 (i.e., Shiv Shankar

Sharma) as Public Interest Litigations before Jharkhand High

Court. The first writ petition is Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of

2021, where a prayer has been made to direct the Directorate

General Income Tax, Investigation to enquire into the money

transferred by the Soren family in the name of private

respondents through the shell companies and also to

investigate the source of income of private respondents and

to investigate the financial crime committed by respondent

No.6 i.e. Hemant Soren, the present Chief Minister of

Jharkhand, among other reliefs sought in the petitions.

7. The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 is the one

where a direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief

Minister, who is also the Minister in the Department of Mines.

The reason being that he has misused his office in getting a

mining lease in his own name. As far as the second writ

petition is concerned, a reply has been filed by the State of

Jharkhand before the Jharkhand High Court as well as by the

12

Chief Minister, Mr. Hemant Soren that full facts of the case

have not been stated by the petitioner in the petition and he

has deliberately suppressed the material facts. The mining

lease which is alleged to have been made in favour of the

Chief Minister is on a land situated in Angadha Mauza, Thana

No. 26, Khata No.187, Plot No.482 and the total Area of the

land is only 0.88 Acres. It was allotted to Mr. Hemant Soren

for a period of 10 years between 17.05.2008 to 17.05.2018

after the expiry of the lease period of 10 years an application

for its renewal was made belatedly by Mr. Hemant Soren on

06.06.2018 and by that time the lease had lapsed.

Subsequently by way of Gazette Notification No.1 of 2021

which was issued on 27.03.2021, fresh applications for the

mining lease were invited. A letter of intent was given in

favour of Mr. Hemant Soren on 16.06.2021. All the same on

04.02.2022 the respondent No. 7, i.e., Mr. Hemant Soren

wrote to District Mining Officer, Ranchi for surrendering

mining lease with immediate effect. As per Section 26 of

Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 a demand

for advance of six months of royalty to be deposited by Mr.

Hemant Soren and the mining lease was surrendered and was

13

accepted under the Rules on 11.02 .2022. Therefore,

according to the respondent at the time of filing of the second

writ petition (PIL) No.727 of 2022, there was no mining lease

in favour of respondent No. 7 as it had already stood

surrendered. In its reply dated 05.05.2022, the State of

Jharkhand has also stated that although the lease was

renewed in favour of the Mr. Hemant Soren no mining activity

or extraction of stone took place on the mining lease area.

Further, in this regard if any anomaly has been committed

and respondent No. 7 has to suffer a disqualification from his

office, for having a mining lease in his favour, the matter in

this regard is pending inquiry before the Election

Commission of India in a Reference case No. 3(G) of 2022

which is registered on the reference received from the

Hon’ble Governor of Jharkhand under Article 192

3

of the

Constitution of India. The Election Commission of India has

issued a notice to the Chief Secretary on 08.04.2022 seeking

certain information which had been duly supplied by the

3

Article 192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members—

(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject

to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referred for the

decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final.

(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election

Commission and shall act according to such opinion

14

State vide its letter dated 26.04.2022. In other words, this

matter as regarding the mining lease in favour of the Chief

Minister, i.e., Mr. Hemant Soren and his disqualification from

office, is pending consideration with the Election Commission

of India. So much for the second writ petition which in our

view is totally an abuse of the process of this Court.

8. Regarding the first Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 the

allegations which had been made of money laundering and

money being invested in shell companies are again mere

allegations. The petitioner has actually sought an

investigation by the Court. It prays for a writ of mandamus in

this regard to the Investigating Agencies such as CBI or

Enforcement Directorate to investigate. This in our view is

again an abuse of the process of the Court, as the petition is

short of wild and sweeping allegations, there is nothing

placed before the Court which in any way may be called to

be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the

petitioner is questionable and the clear fact that he has not

approached the Court with clean hands makes it a case which

was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

15

9. This Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim

4

under

similar circumstances has held that a writ court is not an

appropriate forum for seeking an initiation of such an

investigation. A reference to the facts of Kunga Nima

Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for our purposes. In the

above case, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution

was filed directly before this Court where the petitioner had

alleged that the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of

Sikkim (impleaded respondent No.2) had misused his public

office and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known

source of income. It was also alleged that the Chief Minister

has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the

cost of Government of India and the Government of Sikkim.

Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner was for issuance of

writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the

allegations that have been made against the Chief Minister.

This Court declined to intervene in the matter holding that a

constitutional court is not a forum to seek redressal of this

nature. The remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are

of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be granted as a

4

(2010) 4 SCC 513

16

matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are

available to the petitioner. In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgement

it was said as follows:

“14. In the present petition, the petitioners

have made a rather vague argument that the

alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri

Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement

of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We

do not find any merit in this assertion

because the guarantee of “equal protection

before the law” or “equality before the law”

is violated if there is an unreasonable

discrimination between two or more

individuals or between two or more classes

of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts of

misappropriation from the public exchequer

cannot be automatically equated with a

violation of the guarantee of “equal

protection before the law”.

15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact

that the alleged acts can easily come within

the ambit of statutory offences such as those

of “possession of assets disproportionate to

known sources of income” as well as

“criminal misconduct” under the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988. The onus of

launching an investigation into such matters

is clearly on the investigating agencies such

as the State Police, Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) or the Central Vigilance

Commission (CVC) among others. It is not

proper for this Court to give directions for

initiating such an investigation under its writ

jurisdiction.

16. While it is true that in the past, the

Supreme Court of India as well as the various

17

High Courts have indeed granted remedies

relating to investigations in criminal cases,

we must make a careful note of the

petitioners' prayer in the present case. In the

past, writ jurisdiction has been used to

monitor the progress of ongoing

investigations or to transfer on going

investigations from one investigating agency

to another. Such directions have been given

when a specific violation of fundamental

rights is shown, which could be the

consequence of apathy or partiality on the

part of investigating agencies among other

reasons. In some cases, judicial intervention

by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on

account of obstructions to the investigation

process such as mate rial threats to

witnesses, the destruction of evidence or

undue pressure from powerful interests. In

all of these circumstances, the writ court can

only play a corrective role to ensure that the

integrity of the investigation is not

compromised. However, it is not viable for a

writ court to order the initiation of an

investigation. That function clearly lies in the

domain of the executive and it is up to the

investigating agencies themselves to decide

whether the material produced before them

provides a sufficient basis to launch an

investigation.

17. It must also be borne in mind that there

are provisions in the Code of Criminal

Procedure which empower the courts of first

instance to exercise a certain degree of

control over ongoing investigations. The

scope for intervention by the trial court is

hence controlled by statutory provisions and

it is not advisable for the writ courts to

interfere with criminal investigations in the

absence of specific standards for the same.”

18

10. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding

that the petitioner must approach the investigating agencies

directly with the incriminating material and then it is for the

investigating agencies to decide on the further course of

action. Although an apprehension was raised by this Court

that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover

alleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched

interests, yet statutory remedies available to the petitioner

must be first exhausted and only thereafter can he approach

the High Court. In the present case no such effort has been

made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to

approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever.

The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of

mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a

relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is

denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus.

This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court

is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the

present Public Interest Litigations before us, it is an admitted

fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in

19

approaching the statutory authorities or made any effort in

the registration of an FIR.

11. Public Interest Litigation was a novel form adopted by this

Court in the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s to hear the

grievances of the vast section of the society which were poor,

marginalized and had no means to reach the Supreme Court

for articulating their grievance. It was thus the Public Interest

Litigation which became the means by which a voice was

given to this large voiceless section of our society (See: State

of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.

5

M.C.

Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

6

). The strict procedures of

the Court were dispensed in a PIL, and in its early stages a

PIL could also be entertained on a mere letter, or a postcard!

It is for these reasons it has also come to be known as

epistolary jurisdiction. This Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal

(supra) while dealing with origin and development of PIL in

this country has divided its growth into three phases which

has been given in its Para 43 as under: -

“Phase-I: It deals with cases of this Court

where directions and orders were passed

5

(2010) 3 SCC 402

6

(1987) 1 SCC 395

20

primarily to protect fundamental rights

under Article 21 of the marginalized

groups and sections of the society who

because of extreme poverty, illiteracy

and ignorance cannot approach this court

or the High Courts.

Phase-II: It deals with the cases relating to

protection, preservation of ecology,

environment, forests, marine life, wildlife,

mountains, rivers, historical monuments

etc. etc.

Phase-III: It deals with the directions

issued by the Courts in maintaining the

probity, transparency and integrity in

governance.”

This Court then traced the abuse of the Public Interest

Litigation and observed that this important jurisdiction has

come to be abused, at the hands of ill motivated

individuals, busy bodies and publicity seekers. A

reference was then made to t he cases of BALCO

Employees’ Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors.

7

and

Neetu v. State of Punjab

8

where frivolous cases filed as

PILs were discouraged and even costs were imposed on

the petitioner in such cases. The credentials of the

applicant who files a PIL was held to be of extreme

importance as also the correctness of the nature of

7

(2002) 2 SCC 333

8

(2007) 10 SCC 614

21

information given by the petitioner which had to be clear,

not vague or indefinite or even generalized. It was also

held that nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and

reckless allegations, demeaning the character of others.

The following directions were given in Para 181 of Balwant

Singh Chaufal (supra): -

“(1) The Courts must encourage genuine

and bona fide PIL and effe ctively

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

22

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.

(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.”

Consequent to above directions made by this Court in

Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) every High Court has

framed its rules for dealing with Public Interest Litigation

including the Jharkhand High Court. For our purpose the

relevant Rules would be Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 and 6. These

Rules are reproduced as under: -

23

“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 pers onal

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.

4-A. If a Public Interest Litigation is filed by a

person on behalf of a Body of Individuals, by

whatever name called, whether registered or

unregistered and whether incorporated or not,

the petition must give full details and history of

such Body, and must also clearly specify the

authority of that person to represent such Body

in that Litigation so as to make the decision

therein binding on all individuals of such Body.

4-B. Every Public Interest Litigation will

chronologically mention in detail all such other

and earlier efforts with their result, which are

within the petitioner’s knowledge, and which

have been made by the petitioner or others for

obtaining the relief sought by the Public

Interest Litigation.

5. To encourage only genuine and bona fide

Public Interest Litigation and discourage Public

Interest Litigation filed for extraneous

considerations, the Bench hearing a Public

Interest Litigation shall first verify the prima

facie credentials of the Petitioner before

entertaining any case as Public Interest

Litigation. Thereafter, notice may be issued to

24

the Advocate General or to any other authority

to enable the Bench hearing the matter to come

to a prima facie satisfaction regarding the

correctness of the contents of the petition or

information before entertaining the same as

Public Interest Litigation.

6. For the aforesaid purpose, a Public Interest

Litigation, shall first be listed with appropriate

office notes under the heading “For Orders”

before the appropriate Division Bench.

6-A. The above procedure may be relaxed by

the concerned Bench, for reasons to be

recorded, in cases which call for such urgent

intervention by the Court that it is not

practicable to allow the delay which may be

caused in following the above procedure.”

The above Rules, 2010 were made pursuant to the directions

of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal

(supra). Rules were to be framed so that it is no more left to

the individual judges to devise their own procedure, but to

ensure uniformity in entertaining a PIL, and to encourage

genuine PIL and discourage PIL which are filed with oblique

motive. In one of the directions, it was said as under:

“(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

25

who have not yet framed the rules, should

frame the rules within three months. The

Registrar General of each High Court i s

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.”

Therefore, the importance of these Rules can never be

underestimated.

12. What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is

the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an

extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by

the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done

irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being

espoused by the petitioner in a PIL.

13. Let us now examine the nature of the PIL which is before us,

i.e., W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021. The petitioner who had filed

this PIL as well as the other PIL (W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022),

and the reliefs in them have already been referred above. It

is an admitted case that in the year 2013 a similar petition was

filed being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 (Diwan Indranil Sinha

Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was dismissed by the

Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court on 22.11.2013,

with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter an SLP was filed

26

against this order before this Court which was also dismissed

by order dated 28.02.2014. What is necessary for our

consideration is that though the said petition was filed by a

different person, i.e., Sri Diwan Indranil Sinha, but this was in

the knowledge of the petitioner in this PIL, as the counsel for

the petitioner in the earlier petition, i.e., in W.P. (PIL) No.

4218 of 2013, and the counsel in the present petition, are the

same. Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that the

dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 would be in the

knowledge of the petitioner. Yet the petitioner in W.P. (PIL)

No. 4290 of 2021 did not even mention the earlier writ

petition or the fact that it was dismissed by the High Court

with costs on 22.11.2013. The fact that it was in the

knowledge of the petitioner is evident as in the petition (W.P.

(PIL) No. 4290 of 2021), a supplementary affidavit was filed on

20.04.2022 where the petitioner (Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma)

does mention that one Diwan Indranil Sinha (i.e., the

petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013) had approached

constitutional authorities about the alleged misdeeds of the

Chief Minister of Jharkhand. In Paras 3 and 4 the following

was stated :

27

“3. That, the petitioner states that, prior to

him one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha has sent

representations with all the details of the

companies & the documents in support of

the illegal earnings before the

Hon’ble President of India,

Hon’ble Home Minister

Hon’ble Governor Jharkhand,

The Director C.B.I.

The Director, Enforcement Directorate

The Central Vigilance Commissioner

The Director, General, (Investigation,

Income Tax.)

Photocopies of the receipts showing

detailed representation sent by Late

Diwan Indranil Sinha before various

authorities dt. 16.11.14 & 21.01.14 are

annexed and marked as Annexure-4 Series

to this application.

4. That, the petitioner states that, the efforts

taken earlier by Late Diwan Indranil Sinha,

wherein, the representation sent by him has

been received by the Central Bureau of

Investigation, and has enquired on their

own Level and communicated to him Vide

Letter No. 376 dated 05.11.14, stating there

in that

“3. You may, if so desire, approach the

competent court or, suitable direction in the

matter.”

Thus, it is clear that, there was prima facie

material available before them, for

proceeding in the matter.

28

Photocopy of the Letter No.376 dt. 5.11.14

of C.B.I. is annexed and marked as

Annexure-5 to this application.”

In the reply filed by the State of Jharkhand before the High

Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021, an objection was taken

regarding the suppression of the earlier writ petition being

W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 as well. Hence, it is clear that the

petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as he

did not disclose the dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of

2013 by the Jharkhand High Court with costs (order dated

22.11.2013), an order which was upheld by this Court in SLP

No. 4886 of 2014 by order dated 28.02.2014. This is also a

clear violation of Rule, 4B of the Rules, 2010 which required

the petitioner to disclose of all similar efforts made in the

past.

14. No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A, 4B

and 5 can be relaxed under Rule 6, for the reasons to be

recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgent

intervention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow

any delay to be caused in the matter. Presently, there is no

finding or order of the Jharkhand High Court that any further

delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous

29

or redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the

Rules. To the contrary, the Jharkhand High Court has held

that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in

nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the

Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the

way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of

allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature. This reasoning,

in our view, is in teeth of the decision of this Court in

directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal

(supra), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High

Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B.

15. At this stage, let us now see as to what the Jharkhand High

Court had to say in the year 2013, while dismissing W.P.

(PIL) No. 4218 of 2013. While dismissing that PIL, with costs

of Rs. 50,000/- it was said as under: -

“17. Time and again, it has been held that

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. Though the

parameters of 'Public Interest Litigation' have

been indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

large number of cases, yet unmindful of the

30

real intention and objections, number of

Public Interest Litigation are filed.

18. The petitioner has not approached the

concerned. authorities at the relevant point

of time. The petitioner has chosen to file this

Public Interest Litigation only after

respondent No.1 0 has assumed the Office of

Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand. We

do not find any bona fide in this Public

Interest Litigation filed by the writ petitioner

and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed

with cost.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, we are of the view that there is no bona

fide in the Public Interest Litigation filed by

the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed

with cost of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand). This

amount, of course, will be deposited by the

petitioner within a period of 6(six) weeks

from today before the Jharkhand State Legal

Services Authority, "Nyaya Sadan", Doranda,

Ranchi. The Registry is hereby directed to

send a copy of this order to the Member

Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services

Authority.”

The dismissal of a similar PIL was a fact which was also not

disclosed by the petitioner, which he would be duty bound to

do so in view of Rule 4-B of the Rules, 2010. This Court in the

case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal &

31

Ors.

9

had this to say on the credentials of the person who

files a PIL, has stated as under :-

"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,

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 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 or poke one’s noses 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 extra-ordinary 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 Janata Oaf case (supra) and

Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of

9

AIR 2004 SC 280

32

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 v. Union of India (AIR

1993 SC 852) and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M.

Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620).

XXX XXX XXX

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

fs 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 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. 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.

33

XXX XXX XXX

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; (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 motive, 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.

XXX XXX XXX

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 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

34

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 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. Whenever such

frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession,

the Court should do well not only to dismiss the

petitioners but also to impose exemplary costs.

If 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.”

16. The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of

extreme importance as this important form of litigation

should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the

process of the Court for their political purposes or for any

other reason, but for a Public Cause.

35

17. Petitioner in this case is admittedly the son of Dr. Gautam

Sharma who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution in a

criminal case

10

against the father of the present Chief

Minister and therefore the Chief Minister has alleged an old

enmity and personal vendetta at the hands of the petitioner.

To our mind, in spite of such objection the PIL could have

been heard had the petitioner come before the Court with

clean hands. He has deliberately and wilfully withheld from

the Court that an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. (PIL)

4218 of 2013) was filed on similar grounds seeking similar

reliefs which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on

22.11.2013 with costs, an order which was upheld by the

Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No. 4886

of 2014.

18. Furthermore, the allegations which were made by the

petitioner are vague, very much generalized and not at all

substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence.

Allegations of corruption and siphoning of money from shell

companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without

substantiating the allegations in any manner whatsoever and

10

Sessions Case No. 3 of 2006 before Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, in a case of

Section 302, 201 IPC.

36

is therefore only asking the Court to direct Central Bureau of

Investigation or the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate

the matter. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the

court.

19. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique

purposes, as was observed by this Court in Ashok Kumar

Pandey v. State of West Bengal

11

. In Balwant Singh

Chaufal (supra) this Court had discussed the three stages of

a PIL which has been discussed above. Then this Court in

Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this

important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143

by observing as under:

“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 peti tions 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

11

(2004) 3 SCC 349

37

on the basis of monetary and non-monetary

directions by the courts.”

This Court then refers to the case of Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd.

v. Prem Chand Mishra

12

which has relied on the Judgement of

this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary

13

, at Para 10 said as

under:

“12. 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 litigants with legitimate

grievances relating to c ivil 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 unauthorised

collection of tax amounts are locked up,

detenu expecting their release from the

12

(2007) 14 SCC 281

13

(1992) 4 SCC 305

38

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 lose

faith in the administration of our judicial

system.

20. Now let us see what are the nature of allegations which have

been made by the petitioner in the PIL filed before the

Jharkhand High Court. Petitioner alleges that the one of the

respondents who is the present Chief Minister of Jharkhand

has amassed a huge wealth by corrupt means by abusing his

position as a Chief Minister and has invested this money in

about 32 companies of which description has been given. The

petitioner then gives details of these companies as to who are

the Directors, etc. The respondent or his relatives are not the

39

Directors of the Companies. But then the petitioner states that

he has information that he has been siphoning off this money

and investing it in these shell companies through one Ravi

Kejriwal who is allegedly a close associate of the Chief

Minister. The allegations of the respondent of money

laundering through shell companies has not been

supplemented by any kind of evidence, whatsoever. The

names of persons who are allegedly responsible for the

operation of these companies have been mentioned, but

without producing any concrete evidence, it has been stated

that these persons are connected/close aides or related to the

Chief Minister. Further, none of the companies have been

made a party to the present PILs, before the Jharkhand High

Court. Thus, an order is sought from the High Court to direct

the Enforcement Directorate to investigate these so called

“shell companies” without even making the companies a

party in the writ proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that in

relation to present two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been

filed with the police or any authority agitating the grievances

and these petitions have been filed before the High Court,

without availing the statutory remedies.

40

21. We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high

offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take

cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions

which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court,

is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The non-

disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past

efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under

the Rules, 2010 further discredits these petitions. The

petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the

High Court. In our view, such a petition was liable to be

dismissed at the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has a

genuine reason to pursue the matter, he has his remedies

available under the Companies Act or under other provisions

of the law where he can apprise the relevant authorities of the

misdeeds of the Directors or Promotors of the Companies. But

on generalized averments which are nothing but mere

allegations at this stage, the Court cannot become a forum to

investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high

constitutional authorities. It was not proper for the High Court

to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half

baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been

41

able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court

with unclean hands.

22. Consequently, we allow the present appeals and set aside the

order of 03.06.2022 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in

W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 and W.P. No. (PIL) 727 of 2022.

………………………… CJI.

(UDAY UMESH LALIT)

.…………………… ………J.

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

.……………………………J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

New Delhi

November 07, 2022