Attempting To Pollute Stream Of Justice: Allahabad HC Imposes 50K Costs On Frivolous PIL Filed In 'Private Interest'

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for filing private interest litigation in the grab of public interest litigation.

The bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held

“In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim supressio veri, expression falsi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted in such cases including the present one.”

The petitioner sought the removal of alleged illegal encroachment over certain land in District Shamli. He claimed that several litigations were pending to remove the illegal encroachments, however, the authorities had been “sitting tight” on the matter.

Claiming to be a permanent resident of District Shamli, the petitioner stated that he aims to “eradicate the evils persistent in the society and irregularities committed by the Authorities.”

An objection was raised by Advocate Gaurav Tripathi for the respondent, regarding the credentials of the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner had not disclosed the same under Chapter XXII, Rule 1 (3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

The Court observed that petitions with regards to disputes between the petitioner and others regarding the said property are already pending before the High Court. It was observed that FIRs have also been filed between the parties regarding business disputes. The Court observed that the petitioner had concealed the fact of litigation with the private respondents in the PIL.

“Hence, it is clear that the petitioner is guilty of supressing material facts and proceedings from this Court and deserves to be dealt with as per law settled in this regard.”

The Court relied on State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) where the Supreme Court issued directions to be followed for filing and dealing with public interest litigations. The directions included the mandate to make proper disclosure of the credentials of the litigant. The Courts were required to be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining such petitions.

In furtherance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 were amended to include sub-Rule (3-A) in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII to add:

"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 espouse; 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 in addition to the aforesaid rule, the Allahabad High Court Rules made it mandatory to disclose any pending proceedings. The Court held that in case requirements laid down in the Rule of 1952 are not fulfilled, the High Court is obliged to deal with such non-compliance.

Relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court held that a litigant who comes to court with unclean hands or “attempts to pollute the stream of justice” is not entitled to any relief from the Court. Accordingly, the cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the petitioner, which was directed to be deposited with the Old Age Home in Prayagraj.

“Since the Public Interest Litigation petitions are meant to wipe out the tears of poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, the Court feels it appropriate that the cost imposed upon the petitioner should also be utilized for those who are in need of money, i.e. to say that it must go for the welfare of the society, particularly, those who are under-privileged or downtrodden for any reason,” observed the Court.

Case Title: Akbar Abbass Zaidi vs. State Of U.P And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125 [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 163 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 125

Counsel for Respondent: Gaurav Tripathi, Irfan Chaudhary

Counsel for Petitioner: Priyavrat Tripathi, Ram Adhar Yadav

Click Here To Read/Download Order