TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itution Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat, (1989 (1) SCC 678). According to the petitioner, he saw a news item in a TV channel wherein it was shown that the authorities were unaware about the non-execution of the death sentence and, therefore, condemned prisoner, the accused has suffered a great degree of mental torture and that itself is a ground for conversion of his death sentence to a life sentence on the basis of ratio in Triveniben s case (supra). It needs to be noted here that prayer for conversion of death sentence to life sentence has already been turned down by the Governor of West Bengal and the President of India in February 1994 and June 1994 respectively as stated in the petition. When the matter was placed for admission, we asked the petitioner who appeared in-person as to what was his locus standi and how a petition under Article 32 is maintainable on such nature of information by which he claims to have come to know of it. His answer was that as a public spirited citizen of the country, he has a locus to present the petition and when the matter involved life and liberty of a citizen, this Court should not stand on technicalitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620). 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. 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.... In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 eith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts. 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 prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments. 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. Coming to the facts of the case, it has not been shown as to how and in what manner the accused, condemned prisoner is handicapped in not seeking relief if any as available in law. The matter pertains to something to happen or not at Kolkatta and what was the truth about the news or cause for the delay, even if it be is not known or ascertained or even attempted to be ascertained by the petitioner before approaching this Court. To a pointed query, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may not be aware of his rights, that except the news he heard he could not say any further and the respondent-State may come and clarify the position. This petition cannot be entertained on such speculative foundations and premises and to make a roving enquiry. May be at times even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. (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 selfimposed restraint on public interest litigants. (SCC p.335, para 61) Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi vs. 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 vs. Union of India, (1984 (3) SCC 161). Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed Ors. (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing the judicial process to continue unsoiled. 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitting such a third party to challenge the findings of the Court can be serious, e.g., in the instant case, itself the co-accused who have been acquitted by the Designated Court and whose acquittal has been confirmed by this Court would run the risk of a fresh trial and a possible conviction. Similar view was expressed in Karamjeet Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 284). It was noted that Article 32 which finds a place in Part III of the Constitution entitled fundamental rights provides that right to move this Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred in that part is guaranteed. It empowers this Court to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The petitioner did not seek to enforce any of his fundamental rights nor did he complain that any of his fundamental right was violated. He sought to enforce the fundamental rights of others, namely, the two condemned convicts who themselves did not complain of their violation. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
