Madras High Court Junks Plea Seeking Special Benches For Hearing Cases Against Public Spirited Persons, Journalists & Youtubers

The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji said that no person had a right to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to constitute a special bench. The court added that the petitioner's grievance could not be redressed by way of a public interest litigation.

“No person has a right to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to constitute a Special Bench. It is for the Chief Justice to consider the grievance of the petitioner on the administrative side and the same can neither be espoused nor redressed by way of a public interest litigation,” the court said.

The court also observed that various factors had to be considered before establishing a separate bench to deal with particular types of cases. The court noted that while the petitioner sought for a special bench, he had not argued that there was a huge backlog of cases against public-spirited individuals, journalists, or Youtubers and had neither placed any evidence pointing to the pendency of the cases.

The court added that if the relief sought in the present case was allowed, it would lead to people from other sections of society also approaching the courts seeking identical relief and thus litigants would start choosing who should hear their cases.

“If a petition of this nature is entertained, it will pave the way to other sections of the society seeking identical relief of constituting a Special Bench for redressal of the grievance of their particular section. It is not as if the provisions of law require constitution of a Special Bench to deal with the alleged crimes. Encouraging litigations of this nature will lead to the litigant choosing who should decide their case,” the court said.

The court also observed that though speedy justice was a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, a special bench could not be constituted based on unsubstantiated allegations leveled by persons especially when the litigant is not the alleged victims themselves.

While dismissing the petition, the court also cautioned against filing public interest litigations sans evidence. The court said that it was essential for public-spirited persons to approach the court with specific facts, figures, and pertinent information to make a real impact in society. The court added that those filing PILs to present solid evidence to support their cause as otherwise the PILs could be dismissed as frivolous and lacking merit.

Muralidharan had contended that the State government was gagging journalists, particularly Youtubers who were acting as whistle-blowers and exposing scams committed by those in power. He argued that social media channels added strength to the fourth pillar of democracy and sought the constitution of a special bench.

The State opposed the PIL and submitted that the Chief Justice of the High Court was the Master f the roster and in his individual capacity had the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases in the administrative side. The stat thus argued that the petitioner, under Article 226 could not seek the constitution of a special bench.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Muralidharan (appearing in person)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.P.M.Subramaniam Senior Counsel for Mrs.N.K.Kanthimathi, Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader, Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan Dy. Solicitor-General

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

Case Title: S.Muralidharan v Madras High Court and Others

Case No: W.P.No.15921 of 2024