Kerala High Court
C.L.Anto vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 361
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C). No.13775 OF 2020(S)
PETITIONER:
C.L.ANTO, AGED 70 YEARS,
HAVING OFFICE AT C/O. DREAM LAND BUILDING,
K.S.R.T.C. ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 307.
BY C.L.ANTO(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES AND NORKA DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011.
4. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI-110001.
BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2020 S. Manikumar, CJ Instant public interest writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any suitable writ or order, to respondents 1 & 2 - State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram; and the Principal Secretary, Industries and NORKA Department, Thiruvananthapuram, respectively, to follow the protocols suggested by the petitioner in paragraphs 34 to 39 in the statement of facts;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction, to the respondents 1 to 4, to consult the petitioner to create a document in the way he caused to prepare during Kuwait evacuation, which helped the war victims to get their compensation, to enable the victims of COVID and its after math directly or indirectly;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to peruse Exhibit-P5 reminder letter addressed to the Coordinator, National Disaster Mission, and assist the petitioner to prepare such materials and medicines in the interest of nation.
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to respondents 1 & 2 to consult the petitioner to adopt his proven protocols in Gulf war etc., to be adopted in the present contingent situation as well.WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 3
(v) Issue a summons to the registry of this Court to produce the new order to be attached into the present writ petition to be treated as Exhibit-P6, considering the urgency of the situation and in the interest of nation.
(vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to respondents 1 to 4, to issue appropriate letter or rogatory to foreign missions to enable the petitioner to assist the Indian Government and Kerala Government to liaison with foreign Governments abroad and to bear the expenses and facilities to assist the Governments, to utilize his experiences and expertise."
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
Petitioner claims to be a public spirited person. He is the grandson of a freedom fighter, who was in jail for several years. Grandfather was a great physician and co-founder of Federal Bank. Petitioner had initiated the Kuwait evacuation during the Gulf War in 1990-91, as the coordinator of United Action Committee, which was formed for the purpose of helping hapless Indians. Petitioner further claims that at present, he is the chairman of Disaster Management College in the country and also the chairman of a State Level Co-operative Society in Energy and Waste Management (NEWSCO LTD.4484). According to the petitioner, he has a lot of administrative experience in taking part in the disaster management in earthquakes at Maharashtra and Kutch (Gujarat). That apart, he claims that he is having a lot WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 4 of medical exposure, due to the medical background of his family, which he had given to the Government to understand, act and evolve plans to stand out from other States in the management of COVID-19. Petitioner further states that he augmented the efforts of Kerala Government to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to reduce the spread of pandemic and to help the expatriates, who want to come to India, he has filed this public interest writ petition on the following grounds.
A) In dealing with contagious disease or pandemic, one has to follow a strict quarantine/isolation protocols to stop the chances of spread.
B) The Governments are duty bound to protect the life of its citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. C) Governments, under Article 253 of the Constitution, are duty bound to take such laws or measures to protect the life and property of its citizen.
D) In cases of individual versus community, the interest of the community has to be given preference, which is a settled principle.
E) Administration of justice being the prime function, the judiciary of this Court is having full power to condone the strict procedural formalities of submission of documents under challenge, as here in this present situation, time factor is very crucial and the relevant document is under the custody of this Court and this Court has power to summon the same for perusal.WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 5
F) COVID-19 has a peculiarity of 21 days of gestation period. If the same is tackled in general, chance of the cross infection can be minimized.
G) The petitioner is having enough experience and exposure in dealing with such contingencies. His suggestion to the Government has helped it to tackle COVID-19 management more effectively than many other countries and States. H) The order of respondent No.2 to cause withdrawal of this writ petition is without considering all aspects such as the nature and characteristics of COVID gestation period, transmission capacity etc. One can see the increasing COVID map due to the unchecked arrival of COVID infected expatriates and interstate travel of migrant labourers and other travelers.
I) It is a well settled legal principle that "an illegal decision cannot be the basis for further illegalities or wrongdoings". K) Decisions involving scientific principles must be based on scientific facts as per many historic decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
L) The flawed decision and new order to be kindly summoned is to be changed in the above facts and circumstances and a new protocol must be followed in the evacuation of larger interest often country and State.
3. That apart, on the aspect of COVID-19, the petitioner at paragraphs 18 to 21 of the statement of facts, has stated hereunder:
"18. When we talk about bringing the expatriates, we must admit their anxiety, seeing the deaths around them. They are our WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 6 brother, who supported the economy of Kerala and Government of India with their foreign exchange earning. The reasons for the death in the countries were due to the lack of understanding about COVID-19, its characteristics, mutation capacities, Specialty of Antigen In the spikes, H (Hemmaglutinine protein) molecule and N (Neuraminidase enzyme) molecule the mutually supportive action by which the virion get attachment to the susceptible point of host cell membrane - the glycoside called as the receptacle, the need of criticality attainment in the pharengeal region of the human body for its primary infections in pharynx, later migrating to esophagus and digestive system destabilizing digestive system, larynx and its epithelial tissues and later for secondary infection in the alveoli causing severe pneumonia and destruction of immune systems, migration to nasal region and to the nervous system to cause loss of sense, sense of proportion, loss of smell from epithelial tissue of larynx and pharynx to the inner mesocutaneous cells, blood stream and destroying tissues of heart and ultimately conquering the human organs and blocking the cell creation as the the virion in the cell takes away the DNA function of cell division to prevent creation of more new cells in body and ultimately resulting in the total organ failure and definite death. The developed countries also took it lightly, without really understanding the methodology of spread, latent remaining capacity, coupled with the villainy of China of very much belated intimation to the world about the generation of COVID Coronavirus in the Wuhan lab. The scientific world has already come to the conclusion that a new Artificial Coronavirus was created way back during 2015 in Wuhan lab and the new Coronavirus was artificially engineered in the lab as early as mid 2019. But China, wilfully by misleading WHO director general WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 7 Athenom, by using former Canadian Settled Chinese origin Director General of WHO, failed to intimate the world about the emergence of this new Coronavirus and its lethal pandemic capacity.
19. The grave mistake of understanding the true capacity of pandemic nature of the virus lead the death of about already more than 5 lakhs persons and infection of more than 50 lakhs in the world. The death is expected to be around one million and patients about 10 millions.
20. In India too, the responsible persons miserably failed to understand that when, the news about the pandemic was out, during late 2019, the fact that India shares more than 4500 Kms of boarder with China. We should know, how Vietnam with 1,500 Kms of border sharing with China could ward off catastrophe to a great extent. The priorities were something else, to mask the financial failure of the Government, selling the public enterprises, the assets of the nation in throw away prices to private agencies etc. etc. HENCE, WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE. The respondents 4 and 5 should have been immediately on alert to be vigilant in the international movement, domestic movement from December, 2020 onwards as the news about the pandemic in China came out in the press. The petitioner shall produce the paper news during hearing.
21. The immigration authorities, Raw, Intelligence agency, Civil Aviation authorities must have been put on alert by the respondent 4 and 5. But, this was not done. AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THE POOR PEOPLE OF INDIA SUFFERED. MAN DIED IN THE STREETS. The infection is going to touch 10 millions shortly. In Delhi and Bombay (Maharashtra), Ahmadabad in Gujarat, people are afraid to move. They are panic struck."WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 8
4. On the aspect of the withdrawal of Exhibit-P4 notification, the challenge in W.P.(C) No.11817 of 2020 and other connected cases, petitioner at paragraphs 27 to 30 of the statement of facts, has stated as hereunder:
"27. This Hon'ble Court would agree that the Governments, both State Government and Central Government, under Article 21 of the Constitution are duty bound to protect the life and property of the citizens of India, including the expatriates. This Hon'ble Court will have no two opinion about need of the safety of citizen of India already in India and those, who are coming via flights who are not infected. The respondent No.2 issued a notification with respect to the Covid certificate, which was marked as Exhibit.P-4 in the Writ Petition No.11817/20 which now stands withdrawn, without any proper evaluation of the ground reality in the foreign countries, though the essence of the spirit of the letter is correct. Prevention of cross infection. Finding the practical problems the aggrieved persons filed the Writ petition. Political people took up this on sentimental basis, for political mileage, without taking into account about the dangerous consequences of the demand for the withdrawal of the Ext.P-4 of the Writ Petition No.11817/20, without understanding the behaviour Coronavirus and its high potential for infection, its methodology of reproduction, effects of human body. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.11817/2020 demanded travel without the certificates considering the difficulties to obtain the certificates and the high cost of the same.
28. The above writ petition, in which the petitioner intervened, was in a position to give a correct suggestion based on scientific truths in the matter, based on the rich experience of the WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 9 petitioner in Kuwait evacuation etc. As elaborated before to this Hon'ble Court which could have been verified to find out its practical approach and scientific veracities. Due to the hue and cry the respondent, cancelled the Exhibit P4 of the writ petition, withdrawn and issued another order, which is in the custody of this Court and perused before issuing permission to withdraw the Writ petition on 26th June, 2020, which was placed on board as the item no.5. This situation, prevented the Hon'ble Court to peruse the IA filed by the petitioner for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court to find out an effective and scientifically correct via media to the difficulties pointed out due to the Ext.P4 cited in the withdrawn writ petition and for preventing the cross infection in transit, for the larger interest of the nation, in travel, in the Immigration/embarkation areas, common transportation etc.
29. But the order Issued while nullifying the above document Ext.P4 of the withdrawn petition though look fine superficially, is without understanding the nature of the covid virus and its nature of infection etc., and hence faulty. The fresh order content of which is read by the petitioner and known to this Hon'ble Court allows the expatriates to come to India by just wearing PP kits, and gloves.
30. Though this order looks prima facie pleasing to the expatriates, the consequential pit falls can cause big cross infection probabilities. The statistics of increase of patients in Kerala shows, 80% through the expatriates, 18% through the persons coming from other States. This Hon'ble Court has perused the copy of the notification, resulting in the issuance of permission for withdrawal of the writ petition. Petitioner has also applied to get the copy of the same and shall submit the copy on receipt of the same. The petitioner could go through the amended/fresh order permitting the WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 10 expatriates to board and travel with PP kits etc. from some records with some counsel. This order of course helps the expatriates from getting the hassles of the certificates and their costs. But. this Hon'be Court would agree, that it is not reducing the risk factor considerably and hence, without understanding the real dangers of infection."
5. Petitioner has made it clear that he has not challenged the very notification No.157/Prl.Secy/Ind & Norka/2020 dated 11.06.2020. However, in support of the prayers sought for, at paragraphs 32 to 39 of the statement of facts, the petitioner has stated thus:
"32. The petitioner can suggest ways to avoid fallacious stands and pit falls in the order as well was the hassles for Covid free certificate, costly Covid tests etc., simultaneously preventing the Covid transmittance maximum from one patient to uninfected persons, using petitioner's 'experience of handling thousands of patients with Typhoid, Jaundice, Cholera, influenza etc., in the Camps at Amman and still bring all of them into India, by chartering flights, ships with the help of International Red Cross Society, help of Foreign Embassies, in co-ordination with Embassies in Jordan, Turkey, Dubai and other concerned countries with the support of Indian Embassies and Governments.
33. The acquired experiences as narrated above, in Kuwait evacuation Kutch earth quakes, Satara Sangly earth quakes, handling flood camps, being the Chairman of the first Disaster management College in the Country, can be put into operation to solve the imbroglio posed on us, the problem of bringing expatriates from WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 11 various countries into India and Kerala with least chances of cross infection. There must be a close co-ordination between the State Government and the Central for bringing Indians to this country from aboard by planes and ships. There must be protocol of bringing people by trains from various states into various places, providing them with food, transit stay, medicines, medical help, Hospitalizations, counseling, onward journey to various places as done during Kuwait evacuation. Of course, those who are really rich and afford may be coaxed to bear their expenses or give contributions for this mission, as done during the Kuwait evacuation. The Government also cannot shy away from this onerous responsibility at one pretext or other.
34. On analyzing the quantum jump of Covid patients both in Kerala and other parts of India, one common denominator stares us, the carelessness in mixing the Covid patients with the non infected persons; in transportation, both inside the country and from abroad in common places. This is the root cause of the increase of Covid patients. This pandemic cannot be managed by political warfare. What required is a scientific understanding about the Covid -19 virus, its spreading characteristics, un-symptomatic carriers, very high mutagenic nature, failure in preventing the infection as the proper medicine and the apt vaccine is still at large. For a correct scientific evaluation, the high mutagenic condition and changing genomic structure which prevents to create a common vaccine for all the Covid-19 Corona stains also assumes importance.
35. The present order permits the expatriates to enter the plane and go through the embarkation, disembarkation procedures etc. if the person is wearing the PP kits and gloves, the prima facie requisites to prevent the infection. But, the respondent No. 1/2 has WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 12 not foreseen the incidental and possible activities of a passenger, inside the plane and in particular that of the children. The order has not taken into account of the following facts and behaviour pattern, which can certainly result in the dangerous situation of Covid virus spreading and subsequently to a community spread, in the brink of which we are already reached. This poses a big safety question and violations of the mandate given by the Constitution under Article 21. a. The children remove the gloves and the cabin crew can in all possibility overlook this.
b. The children will demand water for drinking, in the 2/3 hour journey. They will have to remove the masks and can become susceptible for infection or if infected can pass on the infection to others.
c. The children/ or any passenger can go to the toilet. The PP kit will be removed, gloves will be removed. The virus can pass into the toilet/ toilet seats / seat cover from the infected persons. There is no total disinfecting in the toilets after each entry of passenger into the toilet. The infection is going to be certain reality and the cross infection would be certain and the chances for cross infection would be increased culminate in the community spread of the disease.
d. The cabin is air-conditioned and the air is circulated in the limited space for 3 or 4 hours and will be the most ideal condition for the cross infection and the increase in the probability of infection. This Hon'ble Court would also agree to this point as well as above points. The petitioner is doubly sure. the ICMR, under respondent No.4 can, in no way, disagree with the observation the petitioner has submitted here.
e. If any food or medicine is given or vomiting occurs, which usually happens, can also cause spread of the diseases and the social and community spread is going to be certain to pose big danger to the society including the petitioner, his ailing wife, old mother and similarly place persons, causing the violations of the denial of the Article 21 protection, to culminate into a very serious condition.
36. The experience of the petitioner that the petitioner and the team followed in the evacuation of Kuwaiti returnees would reveal details of the protocols to this Hon'ble Court, so that this WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 13 Hon'ble Court can see how meticulous is the planning and system operated to handle One lakh eighty-six thousand evacuees, in Amman, in Bombay etc.
37. Since the crucial factor being the gestation period and its uncertainty, still considering a time gap of 21 days to be reasonably safe, except in exceptional cases, this special scientific character can be well utilized in scheduling and ring the expatriates from abroad as well as in transportation of people from one state to other.
38. It is not the case that the entire persons are brought from one place to India/Kerala simultaneously. It is logistically impossible too. IT HAS TO BE PROPERLY PLANNED IN CO- ORDINATION WITH THE GOVERNMENTS, AND OTHR STAKE HOLDERS.
39. PETITIONER CAN GIVE A PLAN OF OPERATION AS EXECUTED IN THE Gulf war.
a. Hence first of all, a meticulous registration planning of anticipated expatriates from various countries, particularly gulf countries, to be recorded as most of the expatriates would be from Gulf area. b. The availability of planes, by Government, by chartered would be EVALUATED TO BE scheduled, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OFHE CAPACITY OF THE RECEIVING END IN India, originating country.
c. The need of 200/400 persons per day or so would be decided. (transmitted and co-ordinated by the Indian embassies, State Governments, Central Government, particularly security, immigration authorities and civil aviation authorities. d. This would be intimated by Central Government to the respective states, including Kerala. Once registered for travel, they would be with restricted movement-a kind of quarantine. The volunteers would reach them food, medicine etc., for 7 days, this quarantine would continue. Thermal Checking would be done thrice without intimating the would be travellers. (to prevent the abuse of analgesics to mislead the thermal scanning result as happening now.WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 14
e. Then Two camps would be set up of each having capacity of 200/350 person, to be sufficient for two planes on average. Capacity can be increased as per the availability of resources and materials. Petitioner can help the Indian Embassies and Kerala Government, for sharing his experience, setting up of quarantine rooms in open ground or stadium.
f. Those persons, who are found fit from the house quarantine would be moved to first camp. They would be kept here for 7 days. Anybody found showing symptoms of illness would be shifted from camps to medical quarantine/ treatment facilities. (the petitioner can help the Government with special makeshift easy prefab quarantine/ isolation rooms in the camps. The petitioner shall show this to the amicus curie and a team of doctors, to satisfy the anticipation and true scientific understanding taken into consideration by the petitioner in Covid management. g. Then after 7 days these persons would be removed from camp one to camp two, where they would be kept for another 7 days. If anybody found ill, they would be shifted to medical facilities. By this logistic management, 21 days of probable infectious stage of the Covid-19 can be managed, to eliminate the maximum possibilities of the Covid infections. As true to the scientific principle, prevention is better than cure also applies here. In fact, the petitioner had written about this to the Government. But, some bureaucrats, to whom petitioner is a taboo could not digest this and sabotaged the same.
h. On arrival, they would be kept in quarantine, isolation or for treatment as the case may be.
i. Strict, police/guard vigilant quarantine for another 7 days after arrival can, in all probability, prevent the possibility of infected person chanced to come to the open community. This, as seen can be almost a foolproof way to prevent the chance of Covid-19 cross infection to the "ZERO LEVEL" WEEDING OUT WOULD BE THE ESSENCE OF THE PREVENTION OF SPREAD OF THE DISEASE. We must remember about the strict quarantine being followed in chicken pox and small pox.
j. In the 21 days travel preparation period, a Covid resistant, immune building diet, etc. as the petitioner cited, taken cue from the records of his late grandfather can be practised. k. The dried readily cooked food items, water, blankets, medicines, medical team to be arranged.
l. The camp setting up would be in rotation of shipment in relationship with expected people from different countries, etc. WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 15 m. Required capacity increase can be planned as per the system capacity and the need.
n. AT NO PERIOD OF TIME LINE JUMPING FROM COUNTRIES, TO STATES ETC. WOULD BE PERMITTED. A STRICT DIRECTION BY THIS HON COURT is needed as the politicians under pressure can offset this arrangements.
o. Those found ill would be treated there or clubbed from different emirates, countries by routing properly to bring to India/ Kerala. p. The private chartering/ philanthropist chartering etc. would be only in synchronization with the centre state co-ordination. q. Those treated for Covid also would be observed, with data CREATION, GENOME STUDY, DECLATION SIGNATURE FOR AGREEING FOR PLASMA DONATION.
r. Anybody jumping quarantine formalities in the originating country or in India would be strictly dealt with and to be slapped anti national activities and dangerous disease causing cases, in a CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE protocols, BY SUITABLY AMENDING CR.PC. or augmenting the Covid ordinance (disaster ordinance) etc. s. The cost of transportation would be by the centre as it is the duty of the centre to bring its citizen to the country to protect their life, under Article 21 of the Constitution.
t. The Governments are also mandated by Article 21 to take care of the life of the citizens while transportation to prevent cross infection as Covid is highly infectious and a pandemic. u. The citizens cannot be charged for the transportation at all. If any rich person is willing, he can give donations/charter charges etc., for himself and others as well.
6. During the course of hearing, when the petitioner was posed with a question about his educational qualifications, petitioner submitted that he had post graduate degree in business administration, completed FCA and possesses many diplomas. His main contention is that he has considerable experience in the Kuwait evacuation in Gulf War, in 1990, experience in taking part in the disaster management in earthquakes at Maharashtra and Kutch WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 16 (Gujarat), and having lot of medical exposure due to the medical background of his family, particularly his niece, who has a double Ph.D from Harvard University. Petitioner has further stated that his grandfather was a great physician. Despite the representation dated 24.06.2020 (Exhibit-P5), addressed to the Special Secretary, National Health Mission, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, no action has been taken, which according to him, is due to political compulsions. Though Government Order (Rt.) No.381/ 2020/NORKA dated 24.06.2020 has not been challenged, submissions are made that the said Government order is fallacious for the above reasons.
According to the petitioner, PPE is not the requirement for efficacious control of spread of COVID-19, but segregation of people has to be done, as suggested by by him, in the writ petition and thus, the prayers should be answered.
7. Heard Mr. C.L. Anto, petitioner, who appeared in person and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.
8. Before going to the submissions and the materials available on record, it is desirable to consider the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Public Interest Litigation:
(i) In S.P.Anand v. H.D.Deve Gowda reported in (1996) 6 SCC 734, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 18, held as follows:
"It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 17 Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight- errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filling a series of petitions refusing to accept the Court's earlier decisions as concluding the point. We say this because when we drew the attention of the petitioner to earlier decisions of this Court, he brushed them aside, without so much as showing willingness to deal with them and without giving them a second look, as having become stale and irrelevant by passage of time and challenged their correctness on the specious plea that they needed reconsideration. Except for saying that they needed reconsideration he had no answer to the correctness of the decisions. Such a casual approach to considered decisions of this Court even by a person well-versed in law would not be countenanced. Instead, as pointed out earlier, he referred to decisions having no bearing on the question, like the decisions on cow slaughter cases, freedom of speech and expresssion, uniform civil code, etc., we need say no more except to point out that indiscriminate of this important lever of public interest litigation would blunt the lever itself."
(ii) In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, [(2000) 10 SCC 664], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:-
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 18"232. 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. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction.
233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law."
(iii) In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that, "Public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversial in nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the interest of the public....
97. Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 19 obligations on the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case."
(iv) In Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another v. C.K.Rajan and others, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"41. The courts exercising their power of judicial review found to their dismay that the poorest of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, those handicapped by "ignorance, indigence and illiteracy"
and other downtrodden persons have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as "social action litigation" or "public interest litigation" was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persons. It expanded its wings in course of time. The courts in pro bono publico granted relief to inmates of prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trials, maintenance of human dignity and covered several other areas. Representative actions, pro bono publico and test litigations were entertained in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass real issues on merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural shortcomings. [See Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976) 3 SCC 832)]
46. But with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes. The process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of public interest litigation for ventilating private disputes. Some petitions were publicity-oriented.
50. The principles evolved by this Court in this behalf may be suitably summarized as under:
(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 20 disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court.
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. (See S.P.Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp SCC 87], People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [(1982) 2 SCC 494 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 262], Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1638 :
(1964) 1 SCR 561] and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36] .)
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-à-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v.
Supdt., Central Jail [(1978) 4 SCC 104 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 542] and Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23] .)
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial.
(v) In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering few decisions, on the aspect of public interest litigation, observed as follows:
"4. 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". 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 or poke ones into for a WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 21 probe. 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 v. 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 v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.Srinivas v. R.M.Premchand [(1994) 6 SCC 620].
5. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation'. In Strouds 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."
6. 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...."
7. 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 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 WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 22 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."
8. 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."
9. 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."
10. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:
"109. 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".
11. 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 WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 23 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 exp ress our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees 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 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 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 court 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.
12. 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 consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 24 from improper motives. 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.
13. 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."
14. 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.
15. 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 Maharastra v. Prabhu [(1994) 2 SCC 481] and Andra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s.GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Another [AIR 1994 SC 2151]. No litigant WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 25 has a right to unlimited drought 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 Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. 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.
16. 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 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 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.
19. 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.
20. Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 26 Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., [(1987) 2 SCC 295, 331] said:
"Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331, para 46) *** Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions. (SCC p.334, para 59) *** I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self- imposed restraint on public interest litigants." (SCC p.335, para 61)
21. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India (1989 Supp (1) SCC 251), was in full agreement with the view expressed by Khalid, J. in Sachidanand Pandey's case (supra) and added that 'public interest litigation' is an instrument of the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases. [See also separate judgment by Pathak, J. (as he then was) in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161].
22. Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar [(1976) 1 SCC 671] expressed his view that the application of the busybody should be rejected at the threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 27 interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as crusaders for 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. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold."
23. Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 568] in stronger terms stated: (SCC p.589, para 48) "48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him."
24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti v. State of U.P., [(1990) 4 SCC 449], Sabyasachi Mukharji, C.J. observed: (SCC p.452, para 8) "While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the court."
25. In Union Carbid Corporation v. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584, 610], Ranganath Mishra, C.J. in his separate judgment while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgment has said thus: (SCC p.610, para 21) "I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such activity and nothing perhaps should be done which would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down the WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 28 serviceability of the institution to the people at large. Those who are acquainted with jurisprudence and enjoy social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled."
26. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, [(1991) 1 SCC 598] it was observed as follows:
"Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 must approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation".
27. In the words of Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) "the courts must be careful in entertaining public interest litigations" or in the words of Sarkaria, J. "the applications of the busybodies should be rejected at the threshold itself" and as Krishna Iyer, J. has pointed out, "the doors of the courts should not be ajar for such vexatious litigants"."
(vi) In Dr.B.Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 363, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 29 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 armoury 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, courts 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 busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
(vii) On the aspect of a Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper report, in Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22nd respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation.
5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally."WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 30
(viii) In R & M.Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group [(2005) 3 SCC 91], the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 23 and 24, observed as follows:
"23. Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.
24. Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public interest of large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities."
(ix) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of a petition styled as a public interest litigation, held as follows:
"5. 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 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 WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 31 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.
6. .....
7. 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 WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 32 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.
8. ......
9. 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.
10. 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 WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 33 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 thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
(x) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister.
2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 34 would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2- 2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner."
(xi) In DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ARAVALI GOLF CLUB AND ANOTHER (2008) 1 SCC 683, in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
"17. Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State.
19. Under our Constitution, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction.WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 35
20. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State - the legislature, the executive and the judiciary - must have respect for the other and must not encroach into each other's domains.
22. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (vide AIR para 113 : SCC para 94), this Court observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The same view has been taken in a large number of other decisions also, but it is unfortunate that many Courts are not following these decisions and are trying to perform legislative or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges' preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the filed of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Neely VJ (Scc p.681, para 82).
"82.... I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge ... I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation." It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator."
It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator."
(xii) In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India reported in (2008) 5 SCC 511, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju (as he then was), held as follows:
"40.The justification given for judicial activism is that the executive and legislature have failed in performing their functions. Even if this allegations is true, does it justify the judiciary in taking over the functions of the legislature or executive? In our opinion it does not: firstly, because that would be in violation of the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, and secondly, because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 36 resources for this. If the legislature or executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for candidates who will fulfill their expectations, or by other lawful means e.g., peaceful demonstrations and agitations, but the remedy is surely not by the judiciary in taking over the functions of the other organs."
..........
"59. Unfortunately, the truth is that PILs are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that the dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PILs, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy. As stated in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2005 SC 540, public interest litigation has nowadays largely become 'publicity interest litigation', 'private interest litigation', or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend 'paise income litigation'. Much of P.I.L. is really blackmail.
60. Thus, Public Interest Litigation which was initially created as a useful judicial tool to help the poor and weaker section of society who could not afford to come to courts, has, in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing of the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together."
In the same judgment, concurring with the view of his Brother Judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K.Sema (as he then was), further added, as follows:
"69. Therefore, whether to entertain the petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation either represented by public- spirited person; or private interest litigation in the guise of public interest litigation; or publicity interest litigation; or political interest litigation is to be examined in the facts and circumstances recited in the petition itself. I am also of the view that if there is a buffer zone unoccupied by the legislature or executive which is detrimental to the public interest, judiciary must occupy the field to subserve public interest. Therefore, each case has to be examined on its own facts."WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 37
(xiii) In Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"168. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court.
169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily notamenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts.
170. Normally, there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action."
(xiv) In State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Apex court held as follows:
"(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 38 be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.
(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.
(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.
(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."
(xv) In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale reported in 2012 (2) SCC 425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"57. In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition filed by Subhash Rahangdale as public interest litigation. This Court has, time and again, laid down guiding principles for entertaining petitions filed in public interest. However, for the purpose of deciding the appellants' objection it is not necessary to advert to the plethora of precedents on the subject because in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402, a two-Judge Bench discussed the development of law relating to public interest litigation and reiterated that WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 39 before entertaining such petitions, the Court must feel satisfied that the petitioner has genuinely come forward to espouse public cause and his litigious venture is not guided by any ulterior motive or is not a publicity gimmick.
58. In paragraphs 96 to 104, the Bench discussed Phase-III of the public interest litigation in the context of transparency and probity in governance, referred to the judgments in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613, M.C. Mehta v.
Union of Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 and observed:
"These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court and the High Courts broadened the scope of public interest litigation and also entertained petitions to ensure that in governance of the State, there is transparency and no extraneous considerations are taken into consideration except the public interest. These cases regarding probity in governance or corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can be placed in the third phase of public interest litigation."
59. Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the three Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new dimension was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make investigation into the issues of public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a private interest. In that case the High Court had entertained a writ petition filed by Assistant Medical Officer of K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay questioning the assessment of answer sheets of the Post Graduate Medical Examinations held by the Bombay University in October 1985. He alleged malpractices in the evaluation of the answer sheets of the daughter of the appellant who, at the relevant time, was Chief Minister of the State. The learned Single Judge held that altering and tampering of the grade sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief Minister. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge with some modification.
60. While rejecting the objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a petition filed in public interest, this Court observed:
"The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 40 universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the Court to the public that the truth and the validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary and private litigation assumes the character of public interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and essential for the administration of justice."
(emphasis supplied) (xvi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398, once again laid down the principles governing obligations of the litigants while approaching the Court and the consequences for abuse of process of law while filing the Public Interest Litigation.
(xvii) In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a public interest litigation, the Court must ensure that there is an element of genuine public interest is involved.
(xviii) In State of Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
47. The scope of public interest litigation is very limited, particularly, in the matter of religious institutions. It is always better not to entertain this type of public interest litigations simply on the basis of affidavits of the parties. The public trusts and religious institutions are governed by particular legislation which provide for a proper mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating to the properties of the trust and the management thereof. It is not proper for the court to entertain WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 41 such litigation and pass orders. It is also needless to mention that the forums cannot be misused by the rival groups in the guise of public interest litigation.
48. We feel that it is apt to quote the views expressed by this Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee [(2003) 7 SCC 546] wherein this Court observed: (SCC pp. 574- 75 & 578, paras 60, 64 & 76) "60. It is possible to contend that the Hindus in general and the devotees visiting the temple in particular are interested in proper management of the temple at the hands of the statutory functionaries. That may be so but the Act is a self-contained code. Duties and functions are prescribed in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Forums have been created thereunder for ventilation of the grievances of the affected persons. Ordinarily, therefore, such forums should be moved at the first instance. The State should be asked to look into the grievances of the aggrieved devotees, both as parens patriae as also in discharge of its statutory duties.
***
64. The Court should be circumspect in entertaining such public interest litigation for another reason. There may be dispute amongst the devotees as to what practices in should be followed by the temple authorities. There may be dispute as regards the rites and rituals to be performed in the temple or omission thereof. Any decision in favour of one sector of the people may hurt the sentiments of the other. The courts normally, thus, at the first instance would not enter into such disputed arena, particularly, when by reason thereof the fundamental right of a group of devotees under Articles 25 and 26 may be infringed. Like any other wing of the State, the courts also while passing an order should ensure that the fundamental rights of a group of citizens under Articles 25 and 26 are not infringed. Such care and caution on the part of the High Court would be a welcome step.
*** WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 42
76. When the administration of the temple is within its control and it exercises the said power in terms of a statute, the State, it is expected, normally would itself probe into the alleged irregularities. If the State through its machinery as provided for in one Act can arrive at the requisite finding of fact for the purpose of remedying the defects, it may not find it necessary to take recourse to the remedies provided for in another statute. It is trite that recourse to a provision to another statute may be resorted to when the State finds that its powers under the Act governing the field are inadequate. The High Courts and the Supreme Court would not ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to carry out its statutory functions in a particular manner. Normally, the courts would ask the State to perform its statutory functions, if necessary within a time-frame and undoubtedly, as and when an order is passed by the State in exercise of its power under the statute, it will examine the correctness or legality thereof by way of judicial review."
49. The concept of public interest litigation is a phenomenon which is evolved to bring justice to the reach of people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy and other downtrodden people. Through the public interest litigation, the cause of several people who are not able to approach the court is espoused. In the guise of public interest litigation, we are coming across several cases where it is exploited for the benefit of certain individuals. The courts have to be very cautious and careful while entertaining public interest litigation. The judiciary should deal with the misuse of public interest litigation with iron hand. If the public interest litigation is permitted to be misused the very purpose for which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. In the realm of public interest litigation, the courts while protecting the larger public interest involved, should at the same time have to look at the effective way in which the relief can be granted to the people whose rights are adversely affected or are at stake. When their interest can be protected and the controversy or the dispute can be adjudicated by a mechanism created under a particular statute, the parties should be relegated to the appropriate forum instead of WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 43 entertaining the writ petition filed as public interest litigation."
(xix) In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [(2018) 6 SCC 72], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 96 to 98, held as follows:
"96. Public interest litigation has developed as a powerful tool to espouse the cause of the marginalised and oppressed. Indeed, that was the foundation on which public interest jurisdiction was judicially recognised in situations such as those in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389] . Persons who were unable to seek access to the judicial process by reason of their poverty, ignorance or illiteracy are faced with a deprivation of fundamental human rights. Bonded labour and under-trials (among others) belong to that category. The hallmark of a public interest petition is that a citizen may approach the court to ventilate the grievance of a person or class of persons who are unable to pursue their rights. Public interest litigation has been entertained by relaxing the rules of standing. The essential aspect of the procedure is that the person who moves the court has no personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings apart from a general standing as a citizen before the court. This ensures the objectivity of those who pursue the grievance before the court. Environmental jurisprudence has developed around the rubric of public interest petitions. Environmental concerns affect the present generation and the future. Principles such as the polluter pays and the public trust doctr ine have evolved during the adjudication of public interest petitions. Over time, public interest litigation has become a powerful instrument to preserve the rule of law and to ensure the accountability of and transparency within structures of governance. Public interest litigation is in that sense a valuable instrument and jurisdictional tool to promote structural due process.
97. Yet over time, it has been realised that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly misutilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are petitions which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of a public interest litigation. The true face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unravelled. These concerns are indeed reflected in the judgment of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 44 (L&S) 807]. Underlining these concerns, this Court held thus: (SCC p.
453, para 143) "143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non monetary directions by the courts."
98. The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This Court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice. It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores. Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space."
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 458. Representation dated 24th June, 2020 (Exhibit-P5) is reproduced:
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 469. Exhibit-P1 photograph taken in the year 1991 is about the United Action Committee's Meeting to discuss about the Kuwait Evacuation Problem.
Exhibit-P2 is photograph with the then Hon'ble Prime Minister. Exhibit-P3 photograph is about Gulf Peace Team. Exhibit-P4 is also a photograph. Above photographs have no relevance to the present context of Coronavirus. The petitioner is not a representative of World Health Organisation or Indian Council of Medical Research (IMCR). He is not an Immunologist or Scientist.
Though he claims to have experience in evacuation of people in 1991, he is not an expert in the field of prevention and spread of COVID-19.
10. According to the petitioner, his vast experience in Kuwait Evacuation during Gulf War, disaster management in the earthquakes at Maharashtra and Kutch (Gujarat), and medical exposure on account of his relatives being doctors, as stated above, are enough for issuing a direction to respondents 1 to 4 viz., State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram; the Principal Secretary, Industries and NORKA Department, Thiruvananthapuram; Union of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi; and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi respectively, to consult him, to create a document, in the way the petitioner prepared, during Kuwait Evacuation, which helped the war victims to get their compensation, so as to enable the victims of COVID and its aftermath WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 47 directly or indirectly.
11. The prayers sought for by the petitioner have no legal or statutory basis. He has no right under any Statute to demand the respondents to consult him and to take a decision. The demand of the petitioner that respondents 1 to 4 should consult and assist him to prepare such materials and medicines is wholly untenable. When Scientists, Immunologist and Pharmaceutical companies are tirelessly engaged in developing a vaccine, at the earliest, and when doctors and public health workers are fighting day and night with patients, taking note of the advisories issued by the WHO and ICMR Governments both Central and States, issue periodical advisories to prevent the spread of COVID-19, petitioner who does not possess any qualifications pertaining to medicine, has sought for directions stated above, which are frivolous. Thus, by filing this writ petition, petitioner wants all the above Secretaries to come to his door to have a consultation with him, to prepare a document, in the manner in which he claims to have prepared during Kuwait Evacuation. Even before the commencement of arguments, the petitioner was informed that ultimately if the Court comes to the conclusion that the writ petition with the above prayers is frivolous, the Court would be constrained to impose costs, the petitioner persisted the reliefs sought for and prayed that notice be issued to the respondents.
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 4812. Instant public interest writ petition is without any legal or statutory basis. Mandamus sought for cannot be issued. On the aspect as to when mandamus can be issued, let us consider a few decisions:
(i) In State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmi Kutty reported in (1986) 4 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, a Writ of Mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance.
The existence of a right is the foundation of the jurisdiction of a Court to issue a writ of Mandamus.
(ii) In Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jegannathan, reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 = (1986) 2 SCC 679, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, Vol. I, Paragraph 89, about the efficacy of mandamus:
"89.Nature of Mandamus.-- .... is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy, for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual."
(iii) In Raisa Begum v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 All.L.J. 534, the Allahabad High Court has held that certain conditions have WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 49 to be satisfied before a writ of mandamus is issued. The petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to compel the respondent to do or abstain from doing something. There must be in the petitioner a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the respondents. The duty sought to be enforced must have three qualities. It must be a duty of public nature created by the provisions of the Constitution or of a statute or some rule of common law.
(iv) Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because, a person is praying for. One must establish the right first and then he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled in a series of decisions.
(a) In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309, at paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"10. ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition...."
(b) In Union of India v. S.B. Vohra reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the said issue and held that,- 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so."
WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 50(c) In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280, at paragraphs 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.:
"Note 187.- Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed.
Note 192.- Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty.
Note 196.- Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 51 denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances.
Note 206.--......The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action."
12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC 2149, after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334; Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964, this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports :
"15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 52 which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. .... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same."
(v) When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows:
"Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi- judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 53 capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Prayers sought for by the petitioner are misconceived. This writ petition is frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) to be paid to the 1st respondent - State of Kerala, within one month from today, failing which, the 1st respondent to take appropriate action for recovery.
Writ petition ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly, Judge krj (Contd..........) WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 54
15. Today, after dismissal of the instant writ petition, Sri. C.L.Anto, petitioner, who appeared in person, sought leave to prefer appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. Article 134-A of the Constitution of India deals with Certificate of appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court and it reads thus:-
"134-A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. - Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of article 132 or clause (1) of article 133, or clause (1) of article 134,
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1) of article 132, or clause (1) of article 133 or, as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134, may be given in respect of that case."
17. Appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court arises in a case involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 132 of the Constitution, reads thus:-
"132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases - (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 55 whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, [if the High Court certifies under article 134-A] that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.
.....
(3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided."
On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no substantial question of law, to issue any certificate, under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India and hence, request of the petitioner, is rejected.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE krj WP(C) No. 13775 of 2020 56 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
P1:- COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN DURING THE FIRST MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS AND TO CHALK OUT A PLAN FOR KUWAIT EVACUEES.
P2:- COPY OF A PHOTO OF A LATE NIGHT MEETING IN THE HOUSE OF HON. PRIME MINISTER CHANDRA SHEKHARJI.
P3:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN DURING THE FAREWELL GIVEN TO US IN PALAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
P4:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN WITH LATE RAJIV GANDHI, WHO HELPED US TO BRING EXPATRIATES VIA ROAD FROM AMMAN.
P5:- COPY OF REMINDER LETTER TO COORDINATOR NATIONAL DISDASTER MISSION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.