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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6527 of 2004

PETITIONER: Kushum Lata                                                      

RESPONDENT: Union of India and Ors.                                  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/07/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which the Writ  Petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (in short ’PIL’) was  held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.  

       In the writ petition the stand taken by the appellant was  as follows:

       Respondent No.4 had issued a Notification on 20.11.2002  in pursuance of Government  Order dated 2.11.2002 under  Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession)  Rules, 1963 (in short the ’Rules’) for auction of mines of sand,   boulders etc. located in the district of Saharanpur. As per the  Notification the auction was to be held on 23.12.2002, but the  same was postponed to 30.12.2002. According to the  appellant, she was permitted to take part in the auction on  23.12.2002 but subsequently she was not allowed to  participate and with a view to favour respondent No.5, who  was politically well connected, in a mala fide manner the  auction was held.  A writ petition was filed styled as PIL for  direction to the authorities for investigating into the alleged  irregularities. The High Court noted that one Mohd. Iqbal was  the successful bidder who was not a party in the PIL.  In any  event, the appellant cannot file the PIL when she herself  claimed to be an intending bidder. The writ petition was  accordingly dismissed.  

       In support of the appeal, it has been submitted that the  High Court erroneously proceeded on a highly technical basis  without appreciating that the public interest was involved, the  State’s largess was being given for a very paltry amount and,  therefore, writ application should not have been dismissed.  

       Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the order stating that the High Court rightly  observed that the petition though styled as a PIL was nothing  but an attempt to misguide the Court. There was no public  interest involved and in fact when the appellant was herself an  intending bidder according to her own saying and as such the  petition could not have been maintained. Additionally, a group  of persons have challenged the legality of the auction in Writ  Petition No.349 of 2003 which is pending and the appellant is  petitioner No.11 in the said writ petition.

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

When there is material to show that a petition styled as a  public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster  personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out.  Before we  grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it  necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest  aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to  occupy an important field in the administration of law should  not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest  litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend  "paise income litigation".  The High Court has found that the  case at hand belongs to the second category. If not properly  regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in  unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance,  as well. There must be real and genuine public interest  involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of  knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be  invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their  personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and  enmity.  Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted  by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary  jurisdiction.  A person acting bona fide and having sufficient  interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone  have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out  violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of  statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit  or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects  were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S.  Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs.  Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A  writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public  interest must come not only with clean hands like any other  writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and  clean objective.  (See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India,  (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand,  (1994 (6) SCC 620).

       It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression  ’public interest litigation’. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary,  Volume 4 (IV Edition), ’Public Interest’ is defined thus:

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or  general interest does not mean that which is  interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of  information or amusement but that in which  a class of the community have a pecuniary  interest, or some interest by which their legal  rights or liabilities are affected."

       In Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public  interest" is defined as follows:

"Public Interest something in which the  public, or some interest by which their legal  rights or liabilities are affected.  It does not  mean anything the particular localities, which  may be affected by the matters in question.   Interest shared by national government...."

       In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the  scope of public interest litigation.  In para 52 of the said  judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid  down as follows:

"The expression ’litigation’ means a legal

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

action including all proceedings therein  initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement  of right or seeking a remedy.  Therefore,  lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal  action initiated in a Court of law for the  enforcement of public interest or general  interest in which the public or a class of the  community have pecuniary interest or some  interest by which their legal rights or  liabilities are affected."

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

"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis  that the requirement of locus standi of a party  to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal  capacity of the party to any litigation whether  in private or public action in relation to any  specific remedy sought for has to be primarily  ascertained at the threshold."

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

"While this Court has laid down a chain of  notable decisions with all emphasis at their  command about the importance and  significance of this newly developed doctrine  of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red  alert and a note of severe warning that Courts  should not allow its process to be abused by a  mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper  or wayfarer or officious intervener without any  interest or concern except for personal gain or  private profit or other oblique consideration."

       In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was  observed as follows:

"It is thus clear that only a person acting  bona fide and having sufficient interest in the  proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus  standi and can approach the Court to wipe  out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering  from violation of their fundamental rights, but  not a person for personal gain or private profit  or political motive or any oblique  consideration.  Similarly a vexatious petition  under the colour of PIL, brought before the  Court for vindicating any personal grievance,  deserves rejection at the threshold".

       It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery  proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are  wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the  disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no  efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL  and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the  ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental  rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go  unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid  but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with  legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving  properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal

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

cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows  under untold agony and persons sentenced to life  imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,  persons suffering from undue delay in service matters -  government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases  wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized  collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their  release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a  long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting  into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the  busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious  interveners having absolutely no public interest except for  personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a  proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for  glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by  wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the  Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus  criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a  result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the  Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates  frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and  resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our  judicial system.

       Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be  used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has  to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of  public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or  publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective  weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the  citizens.  The attractive brand name of public interest litigation  should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.  It  should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or  public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on  personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful  to see that a body of persons or member of public, who  approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal  gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique  considerations.  The Court must not allow its process to be  abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who  monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested  interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial  process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and  try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves.  Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap  popularity.  The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be  thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate  cases with exemplary costs.

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

"Public Interest Law is the name that has  recently been given to efforts provide legal  representation to previously unrepresented  groups and interests.  Such efforts have been  undertaken in the recognition that ordinary  market place for legal services fails to provide  such services to significant segments of the  population and to significant interests.  Such  groups and interests include the proper  environmentalists, consumers, racial and  ethnic minorities and others."

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

       The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of  the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of  information given by him; (c) the information being not vague  and indefinite.  The information should show gravity and  seriousness involved.  Court has to strike balance between two  conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in  wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of  others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid  mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives,  justifiable executive actions.  In such case, however, the Court  cannot afford to be liberal.  It has to be extremely careful to  see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it  does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the  Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.  The Court  has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and  busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as  public-spirited holy men.  They masquerade as crusaders of  justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico,  though they have no interest of the public or even of their own  to protect.

       Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and  prevent law from crafty invasions.  Courts must maintain the  social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of  justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social  interest and public good.  (See State of Maharashtra vs.  Prabhu, (1994 (2) SCC 481), and Andhra Pradesh State  Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr.,  (AIR 1994 SC 2151).  No litigant has a right to unlimited  draught on the Court time and public money in order to get  his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes.  Easy access to  justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived  and frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K.  Parasaran, (1996 (7) JT 265). Today people rush to Courts to  file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public  interest.  They must inspire confidence in Courts and among  the public.

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

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

the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as noted, are  taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not  only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary  costs.  It is also noticed that petitions are based on  newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their  authenticity.  As observed by this Court in several cases  newspaper reports do not constitute evidence.  A petition  based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their  authenticity should normally be entertained.  As noted  above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying  the correctness of statements made and information given in  the petition.  It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out  the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore- stated so that the message goes in the right direction that  petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of  the Courts.

        In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp. SCC 87), it  was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of  locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a  busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court  under the guise of a public interest litigant.  He has also left  the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24)

"But we must be careful to see that the  member of the public, who approaches the  court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide  and not for personal gain or private profit or  political motivation or other oblique  consideration.  The court must not allow its  process to be abused by politicians and others  to delay legitimate administrative action or to  gain a political objective."

       In State of H.P. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical  College, Simla and Ors. (1985 (3) SCC 169), it has been said  that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used  with great care and circumspection.

       These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar  Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2004 (3) SCC 349) and Dr. B.  Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2004 (3) SCC 363) and  Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.  (2005 (1) SCC 590).  

       In the instant case, the appellant has styled the petition  as PIL though it relates to a tender where she herself claims to  be a tenderer.  In another petition, questioning legality of the  auction, she is a party.  The High Court was perfectly justified  in dismissing the writ petition styled as a PIL. We make it clear  that Writ Petition No.349/2003 which is stated to be pending  shall be considered in its own perspective in accordance with  law. We express no opinion on the merits of the said writ  petition.  

       The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.