'This Is Not A Moot Court Competition' : Supreme Court Reprimands Law Student For Filing Frivolous Petition

A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai expressed its displeasure in entertaining a Writ petition, filed by the Petitioner-in-person, pertaining to the violation of citizen's right to vote.

Before going into the submissions, the Court enquired about the scope of Article 32 and the fundamental right violation against which the Petitioner was seeking relief.

As the Petitioner apprised the Court that he's a final year law student, the Bench asked him, "What is the scope of Article 32?"

The Petitioner answered, "Art. 32 is for WP and the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, your lordship."

The Court asked the Petitioner to read Article 32 from the Constitution.

The Petitioner humbly responded, "Pardon your lordships, I don't have the Constitution with me now?"

The Bench enquired, "Who advised you to file this Writ Petition?"

The Petitioner informed the Court that he had conducted research and thereafter filed the Writ Petition and no one had advised him to file the same.

The Bench remarked, "If you don't know the scope of 32 what research have you done?"

It further enquired, "What is the Fundamental right that has been violated?"

To this the Petitioner responded that the Writ addresses the violation of fundamental rights of the general citizens; the voters.

The Bench asked, "What is the fundamental right of the citizens of the country that has been violated."

The Petitioner responded, "Right to vote."

Displeased with the response, the Bench commented "You say, the right to vote is a fundamental right? Where do you find it?"

Trying to argue on a different line, the Petitioner submitted -

"Apart from that even in PIL guidelines of 2010 of SC it is mentioned that if there is any violation with respect to the election commission as well, the PIL is eligible to be maintainable."

Refusing to go beyond the enquiry of the scope of Article 32 at that juncture, the Bench stated -

"You said the rights of citizens are violated. You said Right to vote is a fundamental right. Where do you find that?"

Clarifying that Article 32 petition can only be entertained if there is a fundamental right violation, the Court posed a question to the Petitioner -

"If there is no violation of fundamental rights, then why should we entertain this petition?"

Explaining the scope of PIL and mandamus, the Petitioner responded -

"Originally this petition was made to be PIL and for mandamus. Mandamus covers directions, where the Supreme Court has power to direct Government bodies and Respondents No. 1 and 2 are government bodies, so."

Reprimanding the Petitioner for filing a Writ petition under Article 32, which does not in reality pertain to a fundamental right violation, the Bench stated -

"You should remember, this is not a Moot court competition. You have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India. You are a student, otherwise we would have imposed a huge cost for this kind of writ petition. Please concentrate on your studies, pass law and then become a good lawyer. You just want to file Writ Petition because your name would come in newspapers? Don't do this.Dismissed.