DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

.·A                          DA TTARAJ NA THUJI THA WARE
                                             V.

                         STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                    DECEMBER 14, 2004
 B
                       [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

               Public Interest Litigation

           Scope of-Discussed.
 c
               Abuse-Stopping of-Exemplary punishment-Award of-Directions
      issue.

               Extra care to be taken by professionals before filing PIL-Discussed
 D
           Regulatory mechanism vis-a-vis role ofjudiciary in handling of PIL-
      Discussed

           Appellant, a legal professional, filed a 'Public Interest Litigation'
      before the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that there was
 E    no public interest involved; that appellant had resorted to black mailing
      respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and he was also caught red handed accepting
      money from the respondents; and that allegation of unauthorized con-
      structions as made against the respondents in the PIL were also not true.
      The petition was dismissed by the High Court with cost. Hence the
 F    present appeal.

               Dismissing the petition, the Court

            HELD : 1.1. Though the_ petition filed by the petitioner carried the
      attractive brand mane of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can
 G    be said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation
      should not be. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy
      an important place in the administration of law should not be "publicity
      interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest
      litigation" or the latest trend "praise income litigation". The High Court
 H    has found that the case at hand belong to the last category. (904-D, F]

                                            900
             DATTARAJNATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE                         901

      1.2. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the     A
litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. 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 yudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to
be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary       B
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.
                                                           (904-G; 905-A]     c
     The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, [1992) 4 SCC 305; Kazi Lhendup
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 116; Ramjas
Foundation v. Union ofIndia, AIR (1993) SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M
Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620, relied on.
                                                                              D
     Judicial Dictionary by Strouds Vol. 4 (Fourth Edition) and Law
Dictionary by Black (Sixth Edition), referred to.

      1.3. Though this Court spare no efforts in fostering and developing
the laudable concept of PIL and extending its long arm of sympathy to         E
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 there are genuine litigants with legitimate
grievances relating to civil matters involving prqperties 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        F
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years. But others who
filed the petition for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of
publicity etc. break the qt.Jue 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        G
the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors
of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration
in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in
the administration of our judicial system. [907-A, B, C, D, EJ

     1.4. Public interest1itigation is a weapon which has to be used with     H
    902                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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. [907-F]

B
          1.5. "Public Interest Litigation" should be aimed at redressal of
    genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or
    founded on personal vendetta. Court must be careful to see that a body
    of persons or members of public, who approaches the Court is acting
    bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political
C   motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow
    its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms
    who monitor it 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
D   as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win
    notoriety or cheep popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve
    to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases
    with exemplary cost. (907-G, H; 908-A]

          Report of Public Interest Law, USA [1976], referred to.
E
         1.6. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
    applicant; (b) the primafacie correctness or nature of information given
    by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The infor-
    mation should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to
F   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
G   redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere
    reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. 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
H   against the social interest and public good. [908-E, F, G, H; 909-A]
     DATTARAJNATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]                    903

     State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994] 2 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh          A
State Financial Corporation v. Mis. GAR Re-Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR
(1994) SC 2151; Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265
and Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors., AIR
(1999) SC 114, referred to.
                                                                               B
     2. In the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even
indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. Apart from
the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force
behind such cases would get exposed to find out the truth and motive
behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but     C
also impose exemplary costs. (909-F, G]

     S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1918] Supp. SCC 87; State of H.P. v.
A Parent ofa Student ofMedical College, Simla & Ors., (1985] 3 SCC 169;
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr.           D
B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2004] 3 SCC 363, referred to.

     3.1. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations
ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in
aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive
brand name of "Public Interest Litigation". [910-E]                            E

     3.2. A copy of the judgment be sent to Bar Council of India and
the Supreme Court Bar Association for necessary action. [910-G]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No.               p
26269 of 2004.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 28/14.6.2004 of the Bombay High
Court at Nagpur in W.P. No. 648 of 2004.

     Ms. Shilpa Chohan and Mrs. Lalita Kaushik for the Petitioner.             G

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : This case is a sad reflection on members of
the legal profession and is almost a black spot on the noble profession. The   H
      904                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

 A    petitioner who belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as "Public
      Interest Litigation" before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.
      By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there
      was no public interest involved and in fact the petitioner had resorted to
      black mailing respondent nos. 6 and 7 and was caught red handed accepting
 B    "black mailing" money. The High Court also noticed that the allegations of
      unauthorized constructions made in the petition were also not true.

           Cost of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was
      levied, was directed to be paid to the affected respondent nos. 6 and 7 before
      the High Court.
 c
            It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed professionals, if the
      allegation, as found by the High Court to be true and which presently appear
      to be the subject matter of further proceedings in a criminal case, are true.
      This will leave the members of the legal profession black faced for the black
 D    deed of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep
      in the profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the
      attractive brand name of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can be
      said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation should
      not be.

 E          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 coine to occupy an
, F   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". The High Court has found that the
      case at hand belongs to the last category. Ifnot 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
 G    interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight
      errant borne out of wishful thinking. 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
 H    jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
     DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]                       905

proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and        A
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,               B
[ 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 ofIndia, AIR (1993) SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas
v. R.M Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620).
                                                                                   c
      It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest
litigation'. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public
Interest' is defined thus:

         "Public Interest ( 1) a matter of public or general interest does not     D
         mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
         information or amusement but that in which a class of the commu-
         nity have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal
         rights or liabilities are affected."

     In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined       E
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          F
         matters in question. Interest shared by national government.. .. "

      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:
                                                                                   G
         "The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all
         proceedings therein initiated in a Court of Jaw 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           H
    906                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some
            interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

         In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as
    follows:
                                                                                    ...
B
            "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."
c
         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 signifi-
D
            cance 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
E           or other oblique consideration."

         In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as
    follows:

            "It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having
F
            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
G           the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any
            personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold".

          It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings
    initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time oth.-
H   erwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine
         DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]                         907

    litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laud-          A
    able 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 grievances 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 prop~       B
    erties 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,              C
    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 busybodies,
    meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having abso-
    lutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of       D
    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 resu It of which the queue standing outside the doors of the
    Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds         E
    of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration
    of our judicial system.

          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         F
    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 prodm;ts of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine
    public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on               G
    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 considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be
    abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at                  H
    908                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   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
B   threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

        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:

c            "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 ·
D            to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper
             environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and
             others."

          The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant;
    (b) the prim a facie correctness or nature of information given by him; ( c)
E   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) avoid-
    ance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail,
F   for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the
    Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has tc 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 busybodies
G   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.

         Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law
H   from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the s9cial balance by interfering
     DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]                         909

where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is          A
against the social interest and public good. (See State ,of Maharashtra v.
Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corpora-
tion v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., ATR (1994) SC 2151). No
litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money
in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access          B
to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and
frivolous petitions. (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. 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.
                                                                                     c
      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 legiti-
mately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of            D
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 (I 999) SC I I 4 ), this Court held that in service matters Pl Ls should   E
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             F
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. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies,
the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out the
truth and motive behind the petition. Whenever such frivolous pleas, as              G
noted, 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.          H
    910                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         In S.P. Gupta V. Union of India, [1981] Supp. sec 87, it was emphati-
    cally 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)
B
             "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 admin-
c            istrative action or to gain a political objective."

         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.
D
          These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State
    of West Bengal, [2004] 3 SCC 349 and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India &
    Ors., [2004] 3 SCC 363.

          It is disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by
E   the Bar Councils and the Bar Association to see that the process of law is
    not abused and polluted by its member. It is high time that the Bar Councils
    and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party
    as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying
    the attractive brand name of "Public Interest Litigation". That will be
p   keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be
    permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed
    exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court
    had already imposed costs of Rs.25,000, we do not propose to impose any
    further cost.

G       Let copy of this judgment be sent to Bar Council of India and the
    Supreme Court Bar Association by the Registry for necessary action.

          The petition deserves to be dismissed, which we direct.

    S.K.S.                                                     Appeal dismissed.