Before Entertaining A PIL Concerning Corruption By Public Servant The Court Should Satisfy Itself With Petitioner's Credentials: Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed thus while dismissing a PIL plea filed before it by a dismissed state government employee of seeking, among other things, action against a current employee of the state government (respondent no. 6) on account of his alleged corrupt activities.

The Court observed that it appeared that the petitioner bore certain grudges against respondent no.6 and hence, he had moved the Court with a disguised public interest litigation petition for wreaking vengeance against respondent no.6.

In this regard, the HC also referred to Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of State of Jharkhand vs Shiv Shankar Sharma | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924 wherein the Top Court had observed that the bona fide of the petitioner who files the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined at the very threshold itself.

Consequently, finding that the petitioner had not approached the Court with any bona fide intentions and that the malice on his part, as a matter of fact, was writ large in this case, the Court dismissed his PIL plea.

The bench, however, found other prayers in the PIL plea to be relevant including the issuance of appropriate directions to the State authorities for improving the conditions of the prisoners in the jails of the State of Uttar Pradesh, payment of wages to prisoners, creation of a corpus by deducting 15% amount being earned by the prisoners to be utilized for compensating the victims of the crimes, etc.

Therefore, the Court decided to make use of material annexed with a writ petition for appropriately dealing with the issues related to the condition of prisons and prisoners, which are engaging the attention of the HC in Criminal Writ Public Interest Litigation No.2357 of 1997.

The Case before the Court

Essentially, petitioner Reevan Singh had moved the Court with his PIL plea wherein, among other things, he prayed for a direction to prosecute the Opposite party No.6 (presently posted as Jail Superintendent, District Jail Sultanpur) with respect to corruption made by him during the period he was remain posted on the post of Superintendent of Jail of District Jail, Moradabad.

It is essential to note that the petitioner is a dismissed government employee, who was dismissed while working as Jailor at District Jail, Moradabad.

The petitioner also sought an independent enquiry with respect to huge corruption and bungling made by the Opposite party No.6 during the period he was remain posted at District Jail, Moradabad on the post of Superintendent of Jail, Moradabad.

Certain other prayers regarding improving the jail conditions in the state were also made in the PIL plea.

At the outset, the Court noted that certain representations were made by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 6 which indicated certain personal feuds of the petitioner with respondent no.6.

In view of this, taking into account the credentials of the petitioner and his primary motive, the Court declined to accede to the prayer in the PIL plea seeking a direction to get a high-level inquiry conducted by some independent agency concerning the alleged inhuman conditions of the prisoners in the jails.

Perusing the documents and materials available along with the writ petition, the Court observed that it was manifestly clear that camouflaging this petition as public interest litigation, the petitioner was seeking some direction to take action against the alleged irregularities and misconducts on the part of the respondent no.6.

In this regard, when the Counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions contained in Section 11(2) of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, according to which if a person is being victimised or likely to be victimised on the ground that he had filed a complaint or made a disclosure or rendered assistance in any inquiry under the said Act, he may file an application before the Competent Authority seeking redress in the matter, the Court said that to seek protection under the said provision, the person has to first establish his bona fides, which, in the instant case, the petitioner had failed to establish.

Against this backdrop, having examined the credentials of the petitioner and also analysing the material available before the bench, the Court found malice on the part of the petitioner and hence, it declined to entertain the PIL plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.