Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Direction To Yogi Adityanath To Take Oath In 'Real Name', With One Lakh Cost
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking direction to the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to take the oath of office again in his "real name".
The PIL also sought direction to the CM "to disclose his full and actual name in public domain and produce all documents thereto" and "to refrain him from using the word 'Yogi' as title in his official communication".
While dismissing the PIL, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrwal imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner, a person from Delhi named Namaha, who appeared in person.
The Petitioner contended that various names of the Chief Minister were being used by different forums including digital platforms, causing confusion among the public. Therefore, the state government must be directed to use only one name of the chief minister on digital as well as non-digital forums, it said.
The Petitioner had arrayed the Chief Minister as "Adityanath" and argued that he did to get answers to questions under the RTI Act. The Petitioner also submitted that he had filed a writ petition for correction of the name of our country as mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution, before the Supreme Court. (In June 2020, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea for renaming India as Bharat. The Court had directed that the plea be treated as a representation before the Government.)
Additional Advocate General Manish Goel appeared for the state. "The petition is not maintainable as CM is made party in the individual capacity in the petition and Public Interest Litigation cannot be filed against an individual. Petitioner had not filed the petition for the benefit of the public at large but only to gain publicity.", he argued.
The Additional AG submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed his credentials as per High Court rules and the petition should be dismissed with cost.
"During the course of hearing, he was addressing arguments in English. He could very well go through the provisions of the Constitution, a copy of which he was carrying with himself but, still, he claimed himself to be illiterate person", the Bench observes in its order.
During the arguments, the Petitioner divulged certain facts which were not pleaded, namely, that he had contested the Assembly election in Delhi in the year 2020 on a ticket of Lok Janshakti Party and secured 70-80 votes. "This fact was concealed from this Court. He being a political person, deliberately chose to conceal his identity while filing the writ petition, apparently with some ulterior motive or cheap publicity", the Court held.
The Court refused to accept the Petitioner's claim that he had been certified to be an illiterate person by the Election Commission of India.
"To discourage filing of such frivolous petitions, in our opinion, the petitioner deserves to be burdened with cost of ₹1,00,000/-. The same is directed to be deposited by him within a period of six weeks with the Viklang Kendra, Bharadwaj Ashram, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Muir Road, Prayagraj – 211002", the Court directed while dismissing the Petition.