SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS.versusSUNDEEP BHUTORIA
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 321
- Decided
- 21 March 2022
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
In a PIL, the respondent cannot be treated as an amicus curiae; consequently, paragraph 17 of the High Court’s order was annulled.
Summary
The Supreme Court entertained a civil appeal challenging a Delhi High Court order that had registered a matter as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Indian Federation of United Nations Association. The High Court, in paragraph 17 of its order, allowed the respondent, who had originally brought facts before the Court, to assist as an amicus curiae, effectively treating him as a disputant. The appellants contended that this was inconsistent with the non‑adversarial nature of a PIL. The Supreme Court held that a respondent in a PIL cannot be designated as an amicus and therefore annulled paragraph 17, while leaving the rest of the High Court’s registration of the PIL intact. The Court directed that the matter continue as a PIL with the assistance of an amicus curiae appointed under paragraph 18, and disposed of the appeal without expressing any view on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a respondent in a Public Interest Litigation can be permitted to assist the Court as an amicus curiae.
- Whether the High Court erred in its procedural direction in paragraph 17 of the impugned order.
Subjects
Judgment
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 875 875
SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. A
v.
SUNDEEP BHUTORIA
(Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 22)
B
MARCH 21, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Public Interest Litigation: Instant matter was registered as PIL
by High Court – Therefore, it ought to be dealt with as a non- C
adversarial litigation – Respondent in the instant appeal, who is
said to have brought certain facts to the notice of the High Court,
is, otherwise, standing in the capacity of a disputant qua the
appellants – That being the position, the observations made in
paragraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court has
D
permitted the respondent to assist the Court and thereby has
practically assigned him the role of an amicus, do not appear
compatible with the requirements of a PIL – Therefore, paragraph
17 of the impugned order is annulled – In other words, the matter is
left open to be dealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects of
the matter are left open for the examination by the High Court with E
the assistance of amicus curiae, who has also been appointed in
terms of paragraph 18 of the order impugned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2086
of 2022.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal No.126 of 2022.
Pallav Shishodia, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Advs., Surjendu Sankar
Das, Ms. Tanya Tikiya, Advs. for the Appellants.
G
Gopal Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv., Ashok Kumar Jain, Avneesh
Garg, Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, Bijoy Kumar Jain, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
875
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R.
A The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Having heard Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel for
B the appellants and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel
for the sole respondent, we are not inclined to consider interference in
the core of the questioned part of impugned order dated 17.02.2022
(from paragraph 11 onwards), insofar as the High Court has considered
it proper to direct registration of a Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’)
concerning the association in question, i.e., Indian Federation of United
C Nations Association, particularly having regard to the prima facie
observations of the High Court, indicating the reasons for registering
such a PIL after disposal of the main matter involved in LPA No. 126 of
2022.
3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has attempted to
D make several submissions as regards the stand of appellants and that
the dispute between them and the respondent is pending in Civil Suit No.
554 of 2019 in the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi. However, we are of the view that all such
submissions and all the relevant facts and factors which, in the prima
E facie opinion of the High Court require clarification, ought to be projected
before the High Court. Thus, we leave it open for the appellants to make
all the appropriate submissions before the High Court as regards their
response to the observations in the order impugned as also their
propositions/objections.
F 4. Even when we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at
this stage, while leaving it open for the appellants to make all the relevant
submissions before the High Court, we are of the view that when the
High Court has registered the matter as a PIL, it ought to be dealt with
as a non-adversarial litigation.
5. In this context, noticeable it is that the respondent of the present
G
appeal, who is said to have brought certain facts to the notice of the
High Court, is, otherwise, standing in the capacity of a disputant qua the
present appellants. That being the position, the observations made in
paragraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court has permitted
the respondent to assist the Court and thereby has practically assigned
H
SURESH SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. SUNDEEP BHUTORIA 877
him the role of an amicus, do not appear compatible with the requirements A
of a PIL.
6. Therefore, we are inclined to annul the said paragraph 17 of
the impugned order. In other words, we leave the matter open to be
dealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects of the matter are left
open for the examination by the High Court with the assistance of amicus B
curiae, who has also been appointed in terms of paragraph 18 of the
order impugned.
7. Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands disposed
of at this stage itself.
8. It goes without saying that we have not expressed any opinion C
on the merits of the case either way.
Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.