"Advocate Filed PIL To Gain Publicity": MP High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Govt's Decision To Reopen Schools With 5K Cost

The bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Pranay Verma dismissed the plea as it remarked that the petitioner, an Advocate had filed the PIL without undertaking proper homework and exercise, to gain publicity.

The case in brief

Advocate Aditya Singh Solanki filed a PIL alleging that the State Government had issued an order directing for the reopening of the schools without considering the ground reality of the Covid situation.

Placing reliance on newspaper cuttings, he alleged that despite the fact that across the State, the Covid cases were on the rise, the State government had issued the order whereby schools had been allowed to be opened.

The petitioner also challenged the order of the State Government asking the parents to sign a "Consent Letter" (to send their wards to the schools), by arguing that the whole burden of child's safety had been shifted on the shoulders of the parents, which was bad in law.

Stand of the State Government

Appearing for the state government, the Additional Advocate General submitted the Government has taken a policy decision by taking into account the relevant factual backdrop of the COVID situation prevailing in Madhya Pradesh.

It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed his petition by placing reliance on various Newspaper cuttings which are related to other States.

Lastly, it was also contended by him that the Government is periodically examining the Covid situation and on the basis of situation prevailing, issuing S.O.Ps and directions and that this has been the practice in all the Departments

Court's observations

Having heard the submissions of both the parties, the Court, at the outset observed that the Government is best suited to decide the mode and methods of running the administration and that as per the COVID situation prevailing, the Government takes a decision and also modifies it.

"The unprecedented Covid crisis was handled in this manner during the entire period. This court cannot conduct a roving inquiry or sit as an appellate authority to examine the decision dated 22-11-2021" the Court added as it stressed that the policy decision of the government cannot be interfered with on mere asking.

Importantly, the court also discarded the allegations put up by the petitioner that the government was keeping its decision/police regarding vaccination for children, a secret.

"In this case, it is not argued that the Government has prepared any secret document which needs to be brought to the notice," the Court said.

Further, the Court also deprecated the act of the petitioner wherein he relied upon a Judgment without bringing the journal or judgment in the Court.

"The citations are not 'Mantras'. Unless the factual backdrop and ratio decidendi of said case is clearly shown, merely citing a judgment will not serve any purpose," the Court observed as it refused to entertain the plea and imposed 5K Cost on the petitioner to be deposited before High Court Legal Aid Committee within thirty days.