http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  95 of 2007

PETITIONER: Neetu                                                           ...Appellants

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab and Ors.                                        ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21781 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.7 \026 Daljit  Singh, purportedly in public interest as a Public Interest  Litigation (in short ’PIL’). Respondents 1 to 6 were official  respondents in the writ petition. Grievance in the writ petition  was that the appellant had got appointment as Audit  Inspector, Co-operative Societies Ferozepur on the basis of  Schedule Caste certificate though she was not member of any  Scheduled Caste. It was averred that the appellant was  married to Shri Jagminder Singh, member of the Scheduled  Caste and it was on that basis aforesaid certificate had been  obtained. It was stated that in spite of several complaints  made to the authorities, no effective action was taken. The  official respondents filed a reply to the effect that proceedings  to cancel the scheduled caste certificate were under progress  and, therefore, the writ petition was premature. The appellant  filed a written statement stating that on account of her  marriage with Jagminder Singh, she was to be considered as a  member of the scheduled caste. It was pointed out that the  writ petitioner was not qualified and only because of personal  vendetta he had filed the writ petition styled as a PIL.  The  High Court by the impugned judgment issued a writ in the  nature of qua warranto setting aside the appointment of the  appellant.   In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that in service matters, PIL is not  maintainable.  The writ petition was filed because of personal  animosity and can by no stretch of imagination be considered  to be a public interest litigation.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.7, on the other  hand submitted that since the appellant was not entitled to a  certificate to the effect that she belonged to any scheduled  caste the authorities were bound to take action on his  grievances.

The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public  interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in  matters involving service of an employee has been examined

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

by this court in various cases. 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 v. Prabhu,  (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial  Corporation v. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., (AIR 1994  SC 2151). No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the  Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled  in the manner as he wishes.  Easy access to justice should not  be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous  petitions.  (See  Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996  (7) JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in  profusion under this attractive name of public interest.  They  must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.

       As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the  petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are  in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts  are flooded with large number of so called public interest  litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately  be called as public interest litigations.  Though the parameters  of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court  in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions  and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions  and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,  could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.  Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar  Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in  service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of  so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in  the Courts and strangely are entertained.  The least the High  Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said  decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs,  official documents are being annexed without even indicating  as to how the petitioner came to possess them.  In one case, it  was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its  possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road  and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found  copies of the official documents. 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. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter  out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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.

       The aforesaid position was highlighted in Ashok Kumar  Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004 (3) SCC 349).

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 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  monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested  interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial  process either by force of habit or from improper motives and  try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves.  Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap  popularity.  The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be

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

thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate  cases with exemplary costs.

The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford  Foundation in USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its  report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

"Public Interest Law is the name that has  recently been given to efforts provide  legal representation to previously  unrepresented groups and interests.   Such efforts have been undertaken in the  recognition that ordinary market place  for legal services fails to provide such  services to significant segments of the  population and to significant interests.   Such groups and interests include the  proper environmentalists, consumers,  racial and ethnic minorities and others."  (See : Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and  Others (2004 (3) SCC 363)

When a particular person is the object and target of a  petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see  whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really  intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or  some other mala fide object.  

Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the  appellant, writ petition itself was not maintainable, to that  extent the High Court’s order cannot be maintained. But it  appears that the official respondents have already initiated  action as regards the caste certificate. Though PIL is not to be  entertained in service matters, that does not stand on the way  of the officials from examining the question in the right  perspective.   In the present case admittedly the officials have  initiated action. What action will be taken in such proceedings  is not the subject matter of controversy in the present appeal.   However, it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any  opinion on the merits of the proceedings stated to be pending.  The only issue which has been examined relates to the locus  standi of the writ petitioner (respondent No.7) to file PIL.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent but without  any order as to costs.