Kerala High Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Seeking 'Cheap Publicity' By Filing Meritless PIL Alleging Misuse Of Wayanad Landslide Relief Funds

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. stated that the present petition was not filed in public interest but for publicity. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to provide any specific examples of the alleged misuse of funds. It stated that the petitioner has no case that he has approached the law enforcement agencies or district administration with any complaints of alleged misuse of funds as claimed.

“You want your name to be published in connection with the natural disaster, a good Samaritan having concern for the rest of the people”, the Court orally criticized the petitioner by stating that he was simply wasting the Court's time, that his actions were not benefiting anyone.

Dismissing the petition, the Court stated thus, “At the very offset, we might observe that there are no details given in the writ petition with regard to any instance of alleged misuse by those collecting funds for the purposes of benefit of victims the recent landslide that occurred in Wayanad…..there is nothing to suggest that any of funds collected pursuant to those advertisements have not reached the intended beneficiaries”

The plea claimed that crores of rupees were collected by various private individuals and organizations, often under religious or political banners, without proper accountability or management. It argued that multiple associations and private entities were parallelly soliciting donations globally, even though the government was already collecting funds through the CMDRF.

The Court enquired with the petitioner if there is any law that prevents persons from making private collections for the benefit of victims. The Court orally said, “Suppose your friend is in hospital, you source your fund from crowd…what is the regulation? It is not an illegal activity.”

The Court further remarked individuals who donate money, place their trust in the process and it is their responsibility to ensure that their contributions reach the victims. It also questioned the petitioner's authority and legitimacy in filing the public interest litigation. The Court further inquired if the petitioner had personally contributed to the CMDRF and whether he had a private grievance about his money not reaching the victims.

The Court orally said, “When it becomes a public interest litigation, you are assuming that everybody is acting without applying their minds. You don't have a representative capacity to argue….other than your paranoia, you may be right also there may be things happening there, but can that be the basis of a public interest litigation…..you are not privately interested but what is the basis of public interest? Your assumption that people are stupid.…that is not a public interest….. that assumption that general public is stupid can never be in public interest.”

The Court went on to say that there were no materials or specific instances provided by the petitioner to come up with such allegations in a public interest litigation. It remarked orally “Are you aggrieved by the people being looted or the funds not reaching the victims?”

As such, the Court stated that it cannot permit persons to misuse Article 226 of the Constitution and thus imposed a cost of rupees 25,000 upon the petitioner and directed the cost to be paid to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF).

Imposing cost upon the petitioner, the Court said, “In our view, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not one that can be misused by persons who appear to be acting for no other reason than for obtaining cheap publicity. Under such circumstances, we are dismissing this writ petition as devoid of merits imposing cost on the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with cost of rupees twenty-five thousand with a condition that the said cost shall be paid to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund within a period of two weeks from today. We make it clear that if the payment is not effected within the aforesaid period of two weeks, it shall be open for the State to recover the same from the petitioner.”

The plea has been moved by Advocates Abdul Raoof Pallipath, I.E.Mohammed Shafi, Prajit Ratnakaran, Sithara Raheem V.K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 517

Case Title: C. Shukkur v The State Of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) 28487/ 2024

Click Here to Read/ Download Order