The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation seeking a prohibition of affixing photographs of deities on walls to prevent public urination, spitting on and littering around such images.

The bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the present case was nothing but sheer abuse of process of law.

"In the opinion of this Court, the present case is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and is a fit case to be crushed at the threshold itself.", the Court held.

The Court observed that "It is certainly not the duty of a Constitutional Court to regulate and monitor the movement of each citizen to see whether one indulges in public urination, spitting and littering. The concern raised by the petitioner would be better addressed by civic bodies and not by this Court."

The PIL was filed by a young practicing advocate who had submitted that the use of such photographs in various places leads to hurting religious sentiments of the public at large and therefore the Petitioner requested the various authorities to prohibit the affixation of such images on walls.

The Petitioner contended that such use of sacred images of religious deities on walls is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Sameer Vashisht ASC appeared for Delhi Govt. whereas Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel appeared for MCD.

The Court observed that earlier a similar plea was raised where the Court stated that the solution to the menace of public urination lies elsewhere.

"It is unfortunate that the Petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, has approached this Court and filed a PIL, being aware of the aforesaid order wherein a similar plea was raised.", the Court noted.

The Court noted that the present PIL is nothing but sheer abuse of the doctrine of Public Interest Litigation developed by the judiciary as a tool to espouse the cause of the oppressed and marginalised sections of the society.

The Court noted that the case was fit to be dismissed with exemplary costs, however, being cognizant of the fact the Petitioner-in-person is a young practising advocate, the Court refrained from imposing any costs upon the Petitioner.

Cause Title- Gorang Gupta v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005667)

Click here to read/download Judgment