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.