Bonafides of PIL Petitioner Extremely Relevant Consideration ; Must Be Examined At Threshold Itself: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court 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.

This has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL, the bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.

In this case, one Shiv Shankar Sharma and another had filed PILs which sought probe against Soren for alleged money laundering through shell companies and obtaining a mining lease while he was in power. Holding that these PILs are maintainable, the High Court observed that an extremely serious matter has been raised in the PILs, where there are allegations of largescale corruption at the hands of the Chief Minister of Jharkhand. The High Court also observed that even though there may be some procedural irregularities in filing of the public interest litigations that should not come in the way of the Court in entertaining the petition, which is in public interest. Further Rules, (i.e., Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010) , according to the High Court, are directory and not mandatory in nature.

Against the High Court order, Soren submitted how no credentials were shown to the satisfaction of the court , how the petitioner and his advocate suppressed the PILs that were filed by them and how there was no prima facie satisfaction of the High Court in the matter.

It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands, the bench observed in this regard. The court made the following observations regarding PILs:

Extremely relevant consideration 

What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL... The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause. 

The court also noted that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitating the grievances and these petitions have been filed before the High Court, without availing the statutory remedies.

"The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation.", the bench observed;.

Regarding the observation of the High Court that Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 ; Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 are directory, the bench said:

"No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 can be relaxed under Rule 6, for the reasons to be recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgent intervention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow any delay to be caused in the matter. Presently, there is no finding or order of the Jharkhand High Court that any further delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules. To the contrary, the Jharkhand High Court has held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature. This reasoning, in our view, is in teeth of the decision of this Court in directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B."

Case details

State of Jharkhand vs Shiv Shankar Sharma | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 924 | SLP(C) No.10622-10623 OF 2022 |7 Nov 2022 | CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation -  Bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused. (Para 12)

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Mandamus - The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. (Para 10)

Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 ; Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 , 6A - Jharkhand HC held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature - Disapproving this view, the Supreme Court held:  This reasoning, in our view, is in teeth of the directions given in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal ((2010) 3 SCC 402), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B. - The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause - (Para 14-16)

Summary - PILs filed in the Jharkhand HC seeking probe against Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren - Appeal against HC order that held PILs maintainable - Allowed - We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court - It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment