Constitutional Courts Should Be Extremely Cautious While Entertaining PILs: Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL For Lack Of Proper Credentials

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his credentials as per Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952).

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi placed reliance on various Supreme Court judgments to hold that the public interest litigation has certain reservations.

“The jurisdiction of the public interest litigation is exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The said jurisdiction has been carved out by judicial creativity. However, the courts while exercising this jurisdiction must exercise the same with extreme caution and responsibility.”

The petitioner filed a PIL for directions to authorities to complete the installation of an incomplete bore well and overhead water tank. The respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the PIL as the Petitioner had allegedly not disclosed his credentials and other details required under Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952), as amended pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others.

Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules:

"(3-A) In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this chapter, the Petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to spouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."

The Court observed that the words 'should precisely and specifically state' appearing in the said Rule necessitate disclosure of credentials by the petitioner. The rule has to be enforced strictly by the Court before entertaining a PIL.

“The requirement of disclosure of credentials from the petitioner is indeed necessary to bring on record the complete background of the person who is coming before the Court. This information helps to establish the petitioner's credibility, locus standi, and his genuineness. Providing credentials also demonstrates that the petitioner has the necessary expertise, knowledge and understanding of the gravity and seriousness involved in the matter. The said information should not be vague and indefinite. The word 'credentials' connotes the qualities and the experience of a person that make him suitable for doing a particular job,” held the Court.

The Court placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Others wherein the Apex Court set the parameters for entertaining a Public Interest Litigation.

“14. 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 motive, 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...”

Further, the Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to emphasise the misuse and abuse of public interest litigation. Justice Rizvi observed that the Courts must be cautious while sitting in PIL jurisdiction.

The Court held that the Petitioner had failed to establish his bonafide and violation of human rights in shifting of borewell from one place to another in the village. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.

Case Title: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others [PIL No. - 1843 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 298

Counsel for Petitioner: Rajeev Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Verma, Krishna Kant Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order