Court Process Can’t Be Abused For Oblique Considerations By Masked Phantoms Who Monitor From Behind: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses PIL With ₹2L Cost
The Jharkhand High Court said that public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs and it is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged.
Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Justice Rajesh Shankar, Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by imposing Rs. 2 lakhs on the Petitioner seeking certain directions.
The PIL sought direction to the authorities to consider the evidences on record and initiate inquiry/investigation into irregularities and illegalities in allocation and usage of developmental funds, especially MLA Fund.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar remarked, “… this Court is firstly required to satisfy itself regarding the credentials of the petitioner, the prima facie correctness of the information given by him, because, after all the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation cannot be used for suspicious products of mischief. It has to be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta or private motive. The process of the Court cannot be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind.”
The Bench said that public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs and it is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged.
Advocate Vinay Kumar represented the Petitioner, while AC Piyush Chitresh represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner claimed himself to be the resident of District Garhwa and engaged in social welfare activities. He claimed to have carried out several welfare activities time to time for the interest of the people. It was averred that the Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development (Disha Division) vide letter issued under seal and signature of Under Secretary to Government of India, had appointed him as Non-Official Member of District Level DISHA Committee of Garhwa as per provision 3(ix) of the Guidelines for District Level Committee.
It was further averred that the Petitioner was always vigilant about undergoing local development works in his own village and nearby villages and in this context, several local residents of the village informed him about large scale irregularities in allotment, disbursement and propagation of local developmental works under the Office of Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa. It was also averred that local residents of the village alleged suspected role of the Respondent-existing Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha, in siphoning off MLA funds for his personal purposes. Hence, the PIL was filed before the High Court, seeking appropriate directions against the same.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “The common rule of locus standi in such cases is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained of on behalf of the poor, deprive, deprivation, illiterate and the disabled and who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. But, then while protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner, utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction nor does it entertain petitions which are motivated.”
The Court noted that PIL 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 public interest seeking is not lurking.
“It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering justice to the citizens. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. It is for this reason that the Court must maintain social balance by interfering for the sake of justice and refuse to entertain where it is against the social justice and public good”, it added.
The Court was of the view that PIL can only be entertained at the instance of a bonafide litigant and cannot be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievance as a Public Interest Litigation.
“It has repeatedly come to the notice not only of this Court, but also the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is a lot of misuse of Public Interest Litigation, which now is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process”, it remarked.
The Court clarified that a litigation in public interest would be allowed only if it is found –
(i) That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;
(ii) That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(iii) That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;
(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;
(v) That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;
(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;
(vii) That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;
(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;
(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;
(x) That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busy body or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to black-mailing or considerations extraneous to public interest.
Conclusion
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court said that even though the Petitioner has claimed to have filed the Petition in public interest, but he has not disclosed and has rather deliberately withheld his complete credentials and interest as is mandatorily required under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.
“The petitioner was required to disclose the criminal case that was admittedly pending against him at the time of filing of the petition. The mere fact that he has been acquitted later on is of no consequence”, it further observed.
The Court also said that the Petitioner has his own axe to grind and wants to settle his political score by filing of instant Petition as he appears to be a political rival of the Respondent and clearly the Petition cannot in any terms be said to be a bona fide, rather the same is mischievous and therefore amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
“The petitioner clearly lacks locus standi being a political rival of the respondent no.7 and by filing the instant petition has shown his oblique motive. … This Court in such circumstances has to act ruthlessly while dealing with such imposters, busybodies and meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. The petitioner cannot masquerade as a crusader of justice and is only pretending to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though he has no interest of the public to protect. The instant petition under ploy to achieve for achieving oblique motives”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Petitioner has abused the inherent jurisdiction of the Court by initiating a proxy litigation under the guise of public interest, while harbouring undisclosed private motives and the saem being founded on suppression, falsehood, and mala fide intent, is thus liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the PIL and imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the Petitioner to be paid within 3 months.
Cause Title- Binod Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:33563-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vinay Kumar and Gautam Kumar Singh.
Respondents: AC Piyush Chitresh, Advocates Anil Kumar, Rajendra Krishna, and Priya Sahay.
