Madras High Court Imposes Rs 50K Cost On Litigant For "Disruptive Attitude" During PIL Hearing

The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji noted that the litigant had displayed a disruptive attitude during court proceedings and had no regard for the court's decorum. Even after engaging a counsel, the court observed that the litigant kept arguing parallelly and disrupted the court proceedings. The court thus directed him to deposit Rs. 50K to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

“Today, when the matter is taken up, the petitioner having engaged a counsel, was interfering with the Court proceedings by appearing in video conference and arguing parallely with his counsel, inspite of repeated warning given by us. In the light of the fact that there is no public element involved in the instant writ petition and the disruptive attitude of the petitioner during court proceedings, disregards the decorum of the Court, we are constrained to dismiss this writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by one Kannan Swaminathan. Swaminathan had sought directions to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to initiate an investigation into alleged charges of corruption, criminal misconduct, etc against the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board.

Swaminathan, who claimed to have 20 years of national and international experience in the water supply and sewerage project alleged that the TN Water Supply and Drainage Board had not conducted the tender process for drinking water supply across Tamil Nadu in a transparent manner as per the Central National Jal Jeevan Mission Guidelines.

Swaminathan submitted that Article 47 which mandated the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living was violated and that the pipelines were not tested for soundness etc. He submitted that even though a complaint was forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Municipal Administration and Water Supply of Tamil Nadu, no action was taken, prompting him to approach the court.

The Water Supply Board, on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection to Swaminathan's allegations. The Board also challenged his locus standi to file the petition. It was submitted that Swaminathan's brother was a registered contractor and looking to maintain the combined water supply schemes of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. it was further submitted that the present petition was filed since his efforts to procure did not fructify.

The court agreed with the board and observed that Swaminathan had, under the guise of the Public Interest Litigation, been espousing his grievance for not awarding the contract to his brother.

The court also noted that Swaminathan had not replied to the preliminary objections raised by the Board and had even interfered with the court proceedings by arguing parallelly with his counsel.

Thus, the court ordered Swaminathan to pay the costs and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Thamizhanban

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.Kishore Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side), Mrs.S.Mekhala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

Case Title: Kannan Swaminathan v Union of India and Others

Case No: W.P.No.12599 of 2024