Madras High Court
Satta Panchayat Iyakkam vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1585
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.4464 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.5038 of 2019
Satta Panchayat Iyakkam,
Rep. by its Trustee Senthil Arumugam @ Senthil Kumar,
S/o.Arumugam,
H42/3, West Avenue, Kamraj Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai- 600 041. .. Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Chief Secretary,
Chennai.
2.Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
3.Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
4.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
5.Commissioner,
Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
http://www.judis.nic.in .. Respondents
2
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to identify the truly
deserved beneficiaries including those affected by Gaja Cyclone from the already
acknowledged data of Below Poverty Line families with well defined parameters and
to publish the same in website for public scrutiny and produce the record/reasons
because of which the inflated number of 60 lakh families were arrived in the
announcement made in Tamil Nadu Assembly on 11.02.2019 by the Hon'ble Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu.
For Petitioner : Party in person
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, AAG-VI,
Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, GP (i/c)
Mr.E.Manoharan, AGP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Claiming himself to be a public interest litigant, a Post Graduate in Computer Applications, a software professional and a Trustee of a Satta Panchayat Iyakkam, has filed the instant public interest writ petition, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to identify the truly deserved beneficiaries including those affected by Gaja Cyclone from the already acknowledged data of Below Poverty Line families with well defined parameters and to publish the same in website for public scrutiny and produce the record/reasons because of which the inflated number of 60 lakh families were arrived in the announcement made in Tamil Nadu Assembly on 11.02.2019 by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2.Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that on 11.02.2019, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has made an announcement in Tamil Nadu Assembly under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules (under clause No.1 of Article 208 of the Constitution) that Government of Tamil Nadu would distribute Rs.2,000/- cash as "Special Financial Assistance" to 60 lakh families, who fall under the category below poverty line. Petitioner has also contended that the impact of the recent Gaja cyclone and drought, were also reasons for the said financial assistance. According to the petitioner, in Public Distribution System, there are nearly 2 Crores (1,97,82,593) ration cards in Tamil Nadu. Petitioner has contended that going to the statement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister that 60 lakh families, below poverty line would be provided with financial help, then 30% of the families in Tamil Nadu would fall under the below poverty line. Petitioner has further contended that even during budget speech 2018-19 financial year, the Hon'ble Finance Minister, has stated that only 11.28% people are below poverty line.
3.According to the petitioner, as per 2011 census, population of Tamil Nadu is 7.2 Crores and this translates to 84.96 lakh people as below poverty line. Based on the NITI Aayog report 2011-12 and the statement of the Hon'ble Finance Minister during budget speech 2018-19, and the details of ration cards issued under the Public Distribution System in Tamil Nadu, Mr.Senthil Arumugam, party in person, submitted that the estimate of 60 lakh families said to be under below poverty line and provided with the "Special Financial Assistance" is highly inflated and that, the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, is without any scientific and logical reason, the decision is arbitrary and therefore, prayed for the relief stated supra.
4.Supporting the submission and the prayer sought for, party in person took us through the announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, World Bank data on people Below Poverty Line in Tamil Nadu for the year 2011-12, budgetary speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister during 2018-19 and the details of the ration cards under the Public Distribution System. In addition to the above, party in person also contended that the decision to distribute Rs.2,000/- cash as "Special Financial Assistance" to 60 lakh families, is arbitrary and unreasonable and placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in R.S.MAKASHI AND OTHERS Vs I.M.MENON AND OTHERS [(1982)1 SCC 379].
5.Responding to the above contentions and on instructions from the Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Woman Development Corporation and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Woman Development Corporation present in Court, Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General submitted that pursuant to the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, on 11.02.2019, regarding the distribution of Rs.2,000/- as one time "Special Financial Assistance" to the poor families living in rural and urban areas, particularly, agricultural labourers and the poor labourers engaged in various trades in Tamil Nadu, Government have issued G.O.(Ms.) No.19, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS-III) Department, dated 13.02.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6.Learned Advocate General further submitted that in order to implement the said "Special Financial Assistance", the details of the poor families living both rural and urban areas in Tamil Nadu in particular, families of agricultural labourers and labourers of other trades, who have already been surveyed and identified as poor, living under below poverty line under various poverty alleviation schemes have been taken note of.
7.Learned Advocate General further submitted that the identification of poor families in Tamil Nadu for various beneficial schemes done through Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) in rural areas and below poverty line list in urban areas for their livelihood security, is the basis for providing "Special Financial Assistance" of Rs.2,000/-. Government have also taken note of the labourers registered under various welfare boards, but, not covered under the list of persons, identified as poor families in rural areas and urban areas, for providing "Special Financial Assistance".
Duplications would be excluded by integrating the available database. For this purpose, about 55,000 enumerators have been appointed. They would collect the details like Aadhaar Card, Smart Card/Ration Card, Bank Accounts and Mobile Numbers from the families and verify with the data. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the procedure for identifying poor families for the purpose of providing "Special Financial Assistance" or beneficial measures, as the case may be in rural areas and urban areas, labourers registered under various welfare boards, is being done for nearly 13 years, since 2006 onwards and that, poor families in rural and urban areas, labourers registered under various welfare boards are enumerated http://www.judis.nic.in 6 following the procedure, for Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) under rural livelihood programmes. Social mapping is also done. Learned Advocate General further submitted that after the detailed exercise of enumeration, poor families in rural and urban areas families identified as poor, are given a card called as Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) card.
8.Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General further submitted that Gaja cyclone, which badly hit Tamil Nadu on 16th November 2018 has caused much havoc and untold sufferings to the people in 12 Districts of Tamil Nadu. Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.(Ms).No.481, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (DM-II Section), dated 10.12.2018, notifying the Districts of Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur, Pudukkottai and Dindigul as cyclone affected areas and Trichy, Karur, Cuddalore, Madurai, Sivagangai, Theni and Ramanathapuram were also declared as affected areas. The Government have also taken note of the failure of monsoon in the year 2018. Thus, considering the effect of Gaja cyclone, failure of monsoon and consequently drought, resulting in poor people being affected, Government, as a one time measure thought it fit to provide "Special Financial Assistance" to the poor people living in rural and urban areas, particularly, agricultural labourers and poor labourers engaged in various trades in Tamil Nadu such as labourers employed in manufacturing crackers, fishermen, handloom workers, powerloom workers, construction labourers, laundry workers, tree climbers, salt pan workers, cobblers, sanitary worker, potters, handcrafters and daily wagers.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
9.Learned Advocate General further submitted that for effective implementation of the Scheme, a Monitoring Committee has also been constituted.
He further submitted that NITI Aayog publications based on various Committee Reports, viz., Suresh D.Tendulkar Committee, NSSO Data, RBI Reports, have arrived at poverty estimates, based on the certain criteria like consumption and expenditure pattern of the sample households etc. He further submitted that the reports enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner are of the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively and whereas, Government of Tamil Nadu through the Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) under rural livelihood programmes, have taken Rs.24,000/- to Rs.50,000/- annual income of the family, as the basis for identifying families under the below poverty line. According to him, enumeration is done, after following a thorough procedure and there are records to authenticate the same. Learned Advocate General further submitted that 60 lakh families estimated to be provided for "Special Financial Assistance" is not inflated and proper survey of identification, has been done, as explained supra. The money to be distributed would be deposited in the bank account of the families, enumerated as below poverty line.
10.By way of reply, Mr.Senthil Arumugam, party in person, submitted that announcement is political, keeping in mind the ensuing elections. He further contended that at one stage the Government claims that there is economic growth and quite contrary declare that there are 60 lakh families below poverty line.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
11.Heard the Party in Person, learned Advocate General, Government of Tamil Nadu and perused the materials on record.
12.G.O.(Ms.) No.19, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS-III) Department, dated 13.02.2019 issued by the Government, for distribution of "Special Financial Assistance" to the poor families living in rural and urban areas particularly agricultural labourers and the poor labourers engaged in various trades is extracted hereunder :
" Abstract Announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules on 11.02.2019 – Distribution of One Time Special Financial Assistance to the poor families living in Rural and Urban areas particularly Agricultural Labourers and the Poor Labourers engaged in various Trades in Tamil Nadu – Orders – Issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS-III) Department G.O.(Ms.) No.19 Dated: 13.02.2019 Read:
Announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister under rule 110 in the floor of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 11.02.2019.
ORDER:
The Hon'ble Chief Minister had made an Announcement Under Rule 110 in the Floor of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 11.02.2019 as follows:-
@midtiua[k; cs;slf;fpa tsu;r;rpjhd;. jkpH;ehl;od; tsu;r;rpahf ,Uf;Fk; vd;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;L vy;nyhUk; vy;yhKk; bgwntz;Lk; ,';F ,y;yhik ,y;yhj epiyntz;Lk; vd;W fUjpa ekJ khz;g[kpF ,jabja;tk; g[ul;rpj; jiytp mk;kh mtu;fs;. jkpH;ehl;od; bghUshjhu tsu;r;rpapd; gad; midj;J kf;fisa[k; brd;wila[k; tz;zk; gy;ntWkf;fs; eyj;jpl;l';fis bray;gLj;jpdhu;fs;/ khz;g[kpF mk;kh mtu;fs; tFj;Jj; je;j ghijapy; cWjpahf elf;fk; khz;g[kpF mk;khtpd; muR. ViH. vspa kf;fspd; eydpy;kpFe;j mf;fiwbfhz;L. Mtu;fis Kd;ndw;wg;
ghijapy; bfhz;L bry;y. gy;ngW eyj;jpl;l';fisa[k;. tsu;r;rpj; jpl;l';fisa[k; rpwg;ghf bray;gLj;jptUfpwJ/ gykhtl;l';fspy; f$hg[aypd; jhf;fj;jpdhYk; gUtkiH bgha;j;jjd; fhuzkhf jw;nghJ Vw;gl;Ls;s twl;rpapdhYk; http://www.judis.nic.in ViH kf;fs; ghjpf;fg;gl;L ,Ug;gij fUj;jpy; bfhz;L. 9 jkpH;ehL KGtJk; tWikf; nfhl;ow;Fj; fPH; cs;s midj;Jf; FLk;g';fSf;fk;. Fwpg;ghf tptrhaj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. efu;g;g[u ViHfs;. gl;lhRj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. kPd;gpo bjhHpyhsu;fs;. tpirj;jwp bjhHpyhsu;fs;. ifj;jwp bjhHpyhsu;fs;. fl;Lkhdj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. ryitj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. kuk; VWk;
bjhHpyhsu;fs;. cg;gsj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. fhyzp kw;Wk; njhy;bghUl;fs; jahhpf;Fk; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. Jg;g[ut[j; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. kz;ghz;lj; bjhHpyhsu;fs;. iftpid"u;fs;. tptrhaf; Typj; bjhHpyhsh;fs; kw;Wk; gy;ntW bjhHpy;fspy; <Lgl;Lf; bfhz;oUf;fpd;w ViHj; bjhHpyhsh; FLk;g';fSf;F ,e;j Mz;L jkpHehL murpd; rpwg;g[ epjpa[jtpahf jyh 2.000 U:gha; tH';fg;gLk; vdt[k; ,jd; K:yk; fpuhkg;g[uj;jpy; thGk; Rkhh; 35 yl;rk; ViHf; FLk;g';fSk;. efh;g;g[uj;jy; thGk; Rkhh; 25 yl;rk; ViHf; FLk;g';fSk;. Mf bkhj;jk; tWikf;
nfhl;ow;Ff; fPH; thGk; 60 yl;rk; ViHf; FLk;g';fs; jyh 2.000 U:gha; rpwg;g[ epjp cjtpiag; bgWth;/ ,jw;bfd. 1.200 nfho U:gha; 2018?19 Jizkhdpaf; nfhhpf;ifapy; epjp xJf;fPL bra;ag;gLk;/@
2. In order to implement the above announcement of Hon'ble Chief Minister of assisting the poor families living both in Rural and Urban areas of Tamil Nadu in particular families of Agricultural Labourers of Other Trades who have already been surveyed and identified as poor living below poverty line under various poverty alleviation schemes, with One Time Special Financial Assistance of Rs.2000/- under the scheme “Special Financial Assistant to the poor families, the Managing Director has requested the orders of the Government to allocate a sum of Rs.1200 Crores and to implement the above scheme.
3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women Development Limited has further stated that the above scheme will be implemented by Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women Development Limited. To implement the One Time Special Financial Assistance in respect of Urban areas, Commissioner of Municipal Administration will be the Co-ordinator and in respect of Rural areas, Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj will be the Co-
ordinator.
4. The proposal received from the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women Development Limited detailed in para 2 and 3 above have been examined and the Government order that the poor families which have already been surveyed and identified as poor families including that of Agricultural Labourers and Labourers engaged in various Trades to be benefitted under this Cheme in this year.
5. For the effective implementation of the above scheme, a Monitoring Committee is constituted with the following composition of members:-
Sl.No. Name & Designation
1. Thiru. Hans Raj Verma, I.A.S., Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Sl.No. Name & Designation
2. Thiru. Harmander Singh, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
3. Thiru.Sunil Paliwal, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department
4. Dr.D.Karthikeyan, I.A.S., Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
5. Thiru.G.Prakash, I.A.S., Commissioner of Municipal Administration
6. Tmt.Madhumathi, I.A.S., Commissioner of Civil Supplies
7. Dr.K.Baskaran, I.A.S., Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
8. Thiru.S.Palanisamy, I.A.s., Director of Town Panchayat
9. Dr.J.U.Chandrakala, I.A.S., Executive Director, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Women Development Limited
10. Thiru.A.R.GladstonePushparaj Additional Director of Rural Development, PTSLP
6. A sum of Rs.500/- crore and Rs.700 crore for Urban and Rural respectively totalling to Rs.1200 crore shall be allocated in supplement Estimates of 2018-19 and shall be debited under the following head of account.
2235 Social Security and Welfare - 02 Social Welfare Rs.700.00 Crore
- 200 Other Programmes. States Expenditure JL Special Fund Assistance to the families under Below Poverty Line – Rural Area 09 Grants-in-Aid – 09 Others (DPC 2235 02 200 JL 0999) 2235 Social Security and Welfare - 02 Social Welfare Rs.500.00 Crore
- 200 Other Programmes. States Expenditure JM Special Fund Assistance to the families under Below Poverty Line – Urban Area 09 Grants-in-Aid – 09 Others (DPC 2235 02 200 JL 0997) Total Rs.1200.00 Crores
7. The amount sanctioned in para 6 above shall not be paid in cash instead shall be deposited under the following head of account.
K.Deposits and Advances (b) Deposits not Bearing http://www.judis.nic.in interest – 8443 -00-Civil Deposits – 800-Other Deposits-
11 BP-Deposits of the Tamil Nadu Corporation for
Development of Women Ltd.
DPC 8443 00 800 BP 000.I.Receipts
8. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration and the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj is authorised to draw and disburse the amount sanctioned in para 6 above. The detailed guidelines for implementation of the above scheme will be issued separately.
9. This order issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.24/Finance DS (b)/2019, Dated 13.02.2019.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) HANS RAJ VERMA ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai – 15. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Limited, Chennai – 34. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai. All District Collectors (except Chennai).
Copy to:
The Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office, Chennai – 9. The Senior PA to Hon'ble Minister (MA&RD, Impn.Spl.Prog.), Chennai-9. The Finance (Budget/RD), Chennai-9.
The NIC, Chennai-9 SF/SC //Forwarded/By Order// Section Officer"
13.Details of the identification, in rural and urban areas labourers registered under various welfare boards, the procedure, as to how Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) is done, are extracted hereunder :
"Brief Note on the Poor families identified in Tamil Nadu for various scheme benefits Poor families in rural and urban areas have been identified in Tamil Nadu over a period of time for implementation of various welfare programmes as given below:
http://www.judis.nic.in 12
1. Rural Areas: Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) under Rural Livelihood Programmes
2. Urban Areas: BPL Survey List
3. Labourers registered under various Welfare Boards
1. Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) in Rural Areas Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) process was conducted in Tamil Nadu in 31 rural Districts covering all the 385 Blocks. Under the World Bank assisted Tamil Nadu Pudhu Vaazhvu Project (TNPVP) from 2006-07 and 2011- 12, this PIP process was conducted in 120 Blocks and subsequently under the Tamil Nadu State Rural Livelihoods Mission (TNSRLM) it was conducted in 265 Blocks between 2012-13 to 2014-15 to identify the rural poor households. Details of PIP process is given in the table.
Total House Holds
Village
Project Districts Blocks House Under Poor
Phase Year Panchayat
Name covered Covered Holds & very Poor
Covered
(in Lakhs) (in Lakhs)
TNPVP Phase 1 2006-07 16 70 2509 17.85 6.14
Phase 2 2011-12 10 50 1665 14.04 3.75
TNSRLM Phase 1 2012-13 15 60 2323 19.85 6.28
Phase 2 2013-14 27 110 3491 30.55 9.37
Phase 3 2014-15 21 95 2499 21.03 6.59
Total 385 12487 103.22 32.13
• The PIP process involved the Participatory Rural Appraisal tool and
techniques such as transect walk, Social mapping, Wealth ranking and triangulation in order to ensure that no poor family is left out in that village.
• PIP was a household exercise conducted in all habitations by the community itself to identify Very Poor, Poor, Differently abled and Vulnerable in all the Village Panchayats.
• Very Poor and Poor Families were identified based on the following criteria:
Very Poor families:
· Families which do not have housing facilities · Kutcha house with thatched roof and mud walls and with only one room. · Families with no Male Breadwinners aged between 16-59 · Women Headed Households http://www.judis.nic.in · Either landless or less than one acre land 13 · Families became poor due to usury · Cattle less family, Freed bonded labourers · Families that had unnatural deaths due to natural calamities, accident, etc. ·Annual income is less than Rs. 24,000/-
Poor families:
· Families having annual income between Rs. 24,000–Rs.50,000 · Families living in IAY / PMAY houses and in own tiled house. · Families having two income earning members · Families having assets like cattle, poultry · Families having one acre wet land or two acre dry land · Families earning income through small income generating activities (weaving, pottery, etc.) · Families doing seasonal petty trades · Families involving in agriculture in leased lands. · The PIP list was displayed in all prominent places in all the habitations to receive claims and objections if any and final PIP list was approved by the Grama Sabha.
Thus 32.13 lakh families have already been identified as Very Poor and Poor families in rural areas by following the above process.
2. The BPL Survey in Urban Areas In the Urban Areas, 23.54 Lakh BPL Households have been identified in 664 urban local bodies consisting of Corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats.
The methodology adopted under BPL is
1. House to House survey in urban areas was done and their living conditions such as Thatched earthen floor, open defecation, No water supply for 500 Yards, illiteracy, unskilled casual labourer, working children not attending school were taken as the highest priority criteria for BPL inclusion.
2. Identifying women headed households headed by widows, divorcees, single women, and Sole women earners who eke out their livelihoods.
3. Vulnerability focus on sectors like Production, services and http://www.judis.nic.in business was given to identify the poor people.14
4. The BPL Survey was done in all ULBs in the year as per the guidelines of SJSRY. In the year 2011, under JnNURM, USHA Survey was done exclusively in slums in 96 towns having population of 50,000 and above. Further, during the year 2015, the USHA survey was carried out in the remaining urban local bodies while making the same exercise covering survey on whole town basis in the already surveyed 96 towns.
5. These BPL data were integrated in 2015.
6. Hence, the final integrated data for corporations, Municipalities and Town Panchayats for BPL families was obtained with the identification of 23.54 Lakh Households.
3. Tamil Nadu Social Welfare Board and 16 other Boards In Tamil Nadu there are 17 Welfare Boards that help to register the various labour oriented poor people and extend the Government assistance to them. As per the report received from the Labour Welfare Department, the workers in different occupations have registered themselves in various Boards, viz., Tamil Nadu Construction Labourers Welfare Board, Tamil Nadu Manual Labourers Social Welfare Board, TN Washermen Welfare Board, TN Hair Dressers Welfare Board, Boards for the Welfare of Tailors, Handicrafts, Palm Tree Climbers, Handlooms, Leather Products Makers, Artists, Goldsmiths, Potters, Housekeepers, Powerloom Workers, Street Vendors, Drivers and Cooks.
In these Welfare Boards as on 31, January 2019, 72.44 lakh persons have registered for seeking benefits.
Apart from this, Department of Fisheries maintains the database of around 1.64 lakh Marine Fisherman poor families who are being assisted by the Department.
The Government proposes to provide a special financial assistance of Rs. 2,000 to the families identified through rural PIP and urban BPL list for their livelihoods security. Those labourers registered through various Labour Welfare Boards but not covered under the above two lists will also be provided assistance after identifying and excluding duplications by integrating the available database. Because, the PIP and BPL data are household based and the data of Labour Welfare Boards are based on individuals.
http://www.judis.nic.in Additional information like Aadhaar Number, Smart Card Number (Ration 15 Card), Bank accounts and Mobile numbers are now being collected from these identified families to avoid duplication and validate the list and to release the assistance of the Government directly to their respective bank accounts through electronic mode of transfer. Around 55,000 enumerators are collecting these additional data both in rural and urban areas.
NITI Aayog Publications based on various Committee Reports like Suresh D. Tendulkar Committee, NSSO Data, RBI Reports have arrived at the Poverty Estimates based on certain criteria like Consumption and Expenditure pattern of the sample households, etc. Therefore, the details of Poor families have been gathered by the Government agencies through various surveys designed for implementing the welfare programmes and livelihood programmes for the poor. Hence the Government proposes to utilise only those household wise data, already made available through survey done with community participation in rural areas and with the designed parameters in urban areas carried out from time to time.
4.Justification in the announcement for the special financial assistance of Rs.2000/- to 60 lakh poor households:
The Gaja cyclone which badly hit Tamil Nadu on the early hours of 16th November, 2018 caused much havoc and untold sufferings to the people in 12 districts of Tamil Nadu. The G.O.(Ms).No. 481, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (DM-II Section), dated: 10.12.2018 has notified the districts of Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur, Thanjavur, Pudukkottai and Dindigul as cyclone affected districts. Further, Trichy, Karur, Cuddalore, Madurai, Sivagangai, Theni, Ramanathapuram were also declared as affected districts.
In the same year of 2018 both the monsoons, i.e., Southwest and North East – were not up to the normal rainfall and most of the districts received poor rainfall. In the meeting conducted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management Department with the heads of urban and rural local bodies and TWAD Board on 21.01.2019, it has been mentioned that there was a deficit rainfall in Dharmapuri (-48%), Krishnagiri (-40%), Chennai (-43%), Karur (-28%), Salem (-29%), Vellore (-36%), Trichy (-38%), Perambalur (-38%), Tiruvallur (-36%), Kancheepuram (-32%), Madurai (-21%), Tiruvannamalai (-24%), Namakkal (-18%), Pudukkottai (-22%), Thanjavur http://www.judis.nic.in (-31%), Nagapattinam (-23%), Villupuram (-28%), Cuddalore (-20%), 16 Ramanathapuram (-20%), Ariyalur (-24%) and Tiruvarur (-17%). It is understandable that in all these districts agriculture is affected causing sufferings to the people.
Sd/-
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Corporation for Development of Women Chennai - 34"
14.Petitioner, has filed the instant writ petition, solely based on the census and the data of the NITI Aayog for the years 2009-10 and 2011-12. Perusal of the data enclosed in the typed set of papers shows that to arrive at the number and percentage of population below poverty line, the experts have taken note of MRP consumption, as a factor. Insofar as Tamil Nadu is concerned, in 2009-10, the number and percentage of persons below poverty line was 7830 (thousands) in rural areas and in urban areas, it was 4350 (thousands), combined it was 12180 (thousands). Similarly, in 2011-12, the figure was, 5923 (thousands) in rural areas 2340 (thousands) in urban areas, combined it was 8263 (thousands). According to the petitioner, as per the data in NITI Aayog report, even assuming that if a family has three persons, the total number of families below poverty line in Tamil Nadu, would be less than 60 lakhs.
15.Perusal of the data of NITI Aayog report shows that the amount taken into consideration for declaring a person as below poverty line in rural areas and urban areas within same State is different, i.e., rural and urban, as the case may be. If the factors taken into account, by the experts who submitted NITI Aayog, amount to be applied and enumeration to be done, then the number of persons, or families, below http://www.judis.nic.in 17 poverty line would be more. Whereas, in the case on hand, after a detailed study, Government of Tamil Nadu, have taken the annual income of the family between Rs.24,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as a base, to declare a family as below poverty line.
The method adopted by the State Government to arrive at a decision, as to whether, a family is below poverty line, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be irrational and not based on scientific and logical reason.
16.Though placing reliance on Supreme Court judgment in R.S.MAKASHI AND OTHERS Vs I.M.MENON AND OTHERS [(1982)1 SCC 379], party in person contended that the recent announcement is made only with an intend to secure votes, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions. Government have considered that Gaja cyclone which hit Tamil Nadu, has caused havoc and untold sufferings to the people in 12 Districts and issued G.O.(Ms).No.481, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (DM-II Section), dated 10.12.2018. Government have taken note of the failure in monsoon and consequently drought, and therefore, thought it fit to provide "Special Financial Assistance" as a one time measure.
17.Contention of the petitioner that the decision to provide "Special Financial Assistance" is political and to secure votes cannot be accepted. Several thousands of families are affected. There was loss of life and property. Considering the reasons for providing "Special Financial Assistance" to the poor families, enumerated, decision of the Government cannot be said as arbitrary, on the other hand, the Government should come forward to assist the poor families, which in the case on hand, has been done as one time measure, "Special Financial Assistance".
http://www.judis.nic.in 18
18.At this juncture, we would like to quote few decisions 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 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."
http://www.judis.nic.in 19
(ii) 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."
(iii) 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights 20 and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305] and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation 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 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:
http://www.judis.nic.in "While this Court has laid down a chain of notable 21 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 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by 22 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and 23 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that 24 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.
17. ..........
18. In S.P.Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp. SCC 87], it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. He has also left the following note of caution: (SCC p.219, para 24) "But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."
19. In State of H.P. vs. 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 Sachidanand Pandey vs. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation 25 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 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."
http://www.judis.nic.in
24. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharash Samiti 26 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in jurisdiction of this Court for personal matters under the garb 27 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"."
(iv) 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."
(v) In R & M.Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group reported in 2005 (3) SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme 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. http://www.judis.nic.in
24. Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful 28 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."
(vi) 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the 29 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the 30 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested 31 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."
(vii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohit Pandey v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, while dealing with the public interest litigation filed by an advocate, held that when a member of legal profession files public interest litigation, it is expected that it is filed with seriousness and after doing necessary home work and enquiry and, if such a writ petition is found to be misconceived, it should be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(viii) 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:
"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 http://www.judis.nic.in genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be 32 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."
(ix) In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale reported in 2012 (2) SCC 425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"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 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 India http://www.judis.nic.in (2007) 1 SCC 110, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 33 407 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in private litigation assumes the character of public interest 34 litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and essential for the administration of justice."
(emphasis supplied)
(x) 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.
(xi) 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.
(xii) In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India reported in 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 undertrials (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 http://www.judis.nic.in from a general standing as a citizen before the court. This ensures the 35 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 doctrine 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 (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 http://www.judis.nic.in personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of 36 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."
19.In line with the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court, Madras has issued notification in SRO C-2/2010 dated 26.07.2010, which is extracted hereunder:-
"No. SRO C-2/2010.
By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the High Court makes the following Rules to regulate Public Interest Litigations (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
Every Public Interest Litigation must be filed in accordance with the following rules:
1. Every PIL must indicate that the petitioner has no personal interest in the case. If he has any personal interest, he must disclose the same. In the event of the High Court finding the claim as frivolous or vexatious, the PIL shall be dismissed with exemplary cost.
2. If the PIL is filed on behalf of a class of persons, the details of http://www.judis.nic.in the persons for whose benefit the PIL is filed, must be indicated. If it is 37 a society or association of persons, the writ petitioner must enclose a resolution from such society or association of persons, authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition and if the body is duly registered with competent authority, a copy of the bye-laws of the said body authorising the petitioner to file the writ petition, shall be enclosed.
3. If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.
4. The petitioner must disclose whether he has filed the petition out of his own funds or from other sources. If it is the latter, the particulars should be given.
5. The petitioner must state in the affidavit that to his knowledge, no PIL arising on the same issue, has been filed anywhere.
6. The affidavit filed by the petitioner must contain the averments that he has filed the writ petition based on his information and his personal knowledge. If he has filed the writ petition based on an information received from any other source, he must clearly indicate the source. If it is a newspaper report, the affidavit shall clearly state as to whether the deponent has verified the facts by personally visiting the place or talking to any responsible person or Reporter or Editor of the newspaper concerned.
7. If the petitioner has given any representation to any authority, a copy of the same shall be filed in the typed set of papers along with reply, if any, received from the authority. He shall file the proof of service of representation before the Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in The above rules will not be applicable to the Public Interest 38 Litigations taken on file by the High Court"
20.It is also worthwhile to extract few decisions, when a policy decision can be interfered with.
(i)In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in {2000 (10) SCC – 664}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“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.
234. In respect of public projects and policies which are initiated by the Government the Courts should not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should not refrain from being asked to review http://www.judis.nic.in the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a 39 decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.” The above mentioned observations have been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {2002 (2) SCC – 333}.
(ii)In DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ARAVALI GOLF CLUB AND ANOTHER {2008 (1) SCC – 683}, in paragraphs Nos.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.
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 Vs. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in perform legislative or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication 40 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.”
(iii)In COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, {2008 (5) SCC – 511}, wherein at paragraph No.40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held thus:-
“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 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 fulfil 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.”
21.Going through the material on record, and the decisions cited supra, policy decision of the Government in providing, "Special Financial Assistance", for the reasons stated, cannot be said to be arbitrary irrational, and against public interest.
http://www.judis.nic.in 41
22.Going through the report, submitted by the Government, we are of the view that there is no irregularity or arbitrariness. There are no merits in the writ petition.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
[S.M.K.,J.] [S.P.,J.]
15.02.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai.
2.Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
3.Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
4.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
5.Commissioner,
Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
http://www.judis.nic.in 42 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
gya W.P.No.4464 of 2019 15.02.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in