Swatanter Kumar, C.J.
1. The Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Mumbai and claims that he was the President of Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Bar Association and a social activist, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present Public Interest Litigation. While referring to the great leaders of the Nation and the freedom struggle during the British rule prior to 1947, it is contended by the Petitioner that during the crisis the U.S.S.R. was the supporter and Pakistan and U.S. could not succeed in dividing India and/or destroying the economy of India. Referring to the present Government at the Centre as a coalition Government, it is averred by the Petitioner that the economy of the country is progressing and however there is complete confusion, insecurity with regard to the existence and continuation of the Government because of nuclear deal with the U.S. which is being opposed by various parties including the parties who are supporting, that is Left party being the Communist party. The 'Agreement 123' is being challenged by different parties and persons and the stability of the Nation is challenged and is in danger. Thus, according to the Petitioner, unless appropriate consideration and interpretation by judicial process is made, there would be great chaos in the Nation and the present situation does not warrant that there should be election being a mid-term election by which the economy of the Nation would be jeopardized and that, therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying that the Court should invoke its public interest litigation and judicial activism and also under the Constitution of India, its power to interpret law and agreement 123 and should remove all misunderstanding and, if necessary, give advise or pass such other orders as may be necessary. On these averments, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in this Public Interest Litigation:
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleaded to invoke its Public Interest Litigation and judicial activism and also under the Constitution of India, its power to interpret law and agreements 123 and to safe-guard the National interest so as to remove all misunderstanding and if necessary give necessary advise and/or initiatives to deal with the present crises and to put an end to the same and to do such acts and deeds as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, and call for Agreement 123 between India-U.S. and scrutinize the same;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass order direct all the parties without creating any misunderstanding and/or mis-trust and negotiate and see that the integrity, sovereignty, independence and unity of the Nation and also its right to progress and become the developed country in the World and prevent any Bar any restriction in the Nuclear Test or Nuclear Programme and operation, which are the independent rights looking to the situation created elsewhere which is within the knowledge of all and without expressing any particular incident the proper direction and advise be given as deem fit and proper;
(c) That interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above be granted;
(d) Costs of this Petition be provided for;
(e) Such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.
2. When the Petition came up for hearing, the Petitioner also informed the Court that he was moving an application being Civil Application No. 35 of 2008 in the present Public Interest Litigation, praying that since the No Confidence or Trust Vote fixed for 21st/22nd July 2008, a request be made to the President of India and the Speaker to postpone the same and allow the parties to consider and re-consider the approach and to avoid any turmoil of national interest and other hardships which are likely to be caused to the common man.
3. We heard the Petitioner who persisted with his arguments for some time. At the outset, we had mentioned to the Petitioner as to whether this was at all a Public Interest Litigation and could such a Petition at all be maintainable under any provision of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
4. The Petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is very wide and in any case the prayers made by the Petitioner can safely be granted. This Petition, alleged to be, a Public Interest Litigation, is vaguely drafted, makes irresponsible statements and was argued in a most casual manner. The Petitioner, who as a lawyer, is also an Officer of the Court, is obliged to act with great sense of responsibility and realize the consequences of filing such a frivolous Petition. It is unfortunate that a practicing Advocate has opted to act in such an irresponsible manner and has instituted the present Petition primarily with intent of publicity. Judicial time was spent in processing and hearing this Petition which obviously deprived hearing of other litigation of needy litigant or consumers of justice. To some extent, such Petitions even hamper the proper administration of justice. A prayer before a Court to call for the records of the Respondents and construe and interpret 'Agreement 123' as alleged and explain its effects on the economic development of the country and advise the political parties to take a view in the matter is not the function of the Court. This Petition wholly falls beyond any known and accepted limits of judicial administration. The present Petition, to say the least, is abuse of the process of the Court and in the words of the Supreme Court as expressed in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR2005SC540 , is 'publicity interest litigation'.
5. In the case of Dr. M Furquan v. Jet Airways India Ltd. and Ors. : 2008(1)MhLj231 , this Court while discussing various facets of a Public Interest Litigation observed as under:.It is settled principle of law that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. The courts have to be careful while entertaining such writ petitions. In the case of Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lal (VIII) and another v. Union of India and Ors. : (2006)205CTR(SC)53 , the Supreme Court has held as under:.The learned Solicitor General further submitted that there had been no interference by Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav or his wife in any of the matters whether in the appointment of Judges or in the change of the prosecutor or in the decision not to file an appeal in the income tax cases. The learned Solicitor General cited T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28 (Hon. Y.K. Sabharwal, C. and Ajit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.) and submitted that : (SCC p 37, para 23):
Howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt...(and that) no trust can be placed by the court on a mala fide applicant in public interest litigation.' The learned Solicitor General submitted that now it is time to give a severe warning and sound alert since these are basic issues which are required 'to be satisfied by every public interest litigant. He also cited paras 25 and 26 in support of the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the political rivals. Mr Ram Jethmalani in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition cited the following decisions : Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary : 1993CriLJ600
109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL, will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating an personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold;Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 59 (Hon. Arjit Pasayat and Hon. S.H. Kapadia, JJ.) and invited our attention to paras 4, 5, 9, 10, 12 and 14.
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. : AIR2004SC280 :
12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at Redressal of genuine public wrong or public inquiry and not publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or a member of the public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide land not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motive. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate case, with exemplary costs.(S.P. Gupta v. Union of India : [1982]2SCR365 (7 Judges) SCC p 219 para 24)
24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that `political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the administrative process' and we might add, through the political process, `may try to use the courts to further their aims'. These are some of the dangers in public interest litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. It is also necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital distinction between locus standi and justifiability and it is not every default on the part of the State or a public authority that is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not over step the limits of its judicial function and trespass into areas which are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is new jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born.The courts while exercising jurisdiction and deciding a public interest litigation have to take great care, primarily for the reason that this wide jurisdiction should not become a source of abuse of process of law by a disgruntled litigant. The courts have also held that no efforts should be spared in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending its long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed. It has to be a genuine litigation, unmotivated and imposes an obligation upon a litigant to come to the court with true facts and clean hands. Public interest litigations result in taking large court's time, which could not be used by the court for the benefit of common litigant. Thus it is more imperative that petitions which are bona fide and further the public cause alone should be entertained in this category.
6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. : AIR2004SC280 , declared the judicial dictum that the Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests, (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. The present case squarely falls in this class of cases. It is a reckless petition with irresponsible averments and allegations.
7. We may also notice that the Petitioner herein had earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation being PIL No. 129 of 2007 (M.V. Holamagi v. Union of India), wherein the Government of Australia and Government of United Kingdom and United National Organization were also made a party and in that Petition he had prayed that the Government of United Kingdom and Australia be directed to pay compensation for damages to India for alleged frivolous allegations made by them defaming the country and they be directed to tender unconditional apology and not to deny VISA or employment and educational opportunity to the Indian citizens. That Petition was based on an allegation that in the newspapers it has been stated that these Governments were branding Indians as terrorist in general and no action has been taken by the Government of India. That Writ Petition was dismissed vide Judgment dated 26th October 2007. The Court found that Petition to be frivolous by the Court, but still did not impose costs in that case, and observed as under:
5. In the present case, no right of the petitioner or the public at large, much less fundamental right, is being affected. The allegations are so vague that they would not even constitute a proper cause of action for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The PIL would be maintainable only when real public interest is involved and it is such an interest alone which will give jurisdiction to the Court. Besides that, a person filing such petition should have a genuine interest in the litigation. This petition lacks all ingredients and essentials of a public interest litigation.
6. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, who himself is an Advocate, has filed this petition with an attitude and averments which would hardly be acceptable before the Court of law. What approach an organization should adopt is again a matter beyond the purview and scope of a public interest litigation. It appears that the present petition has been filed just for publicity and is without any merit and substance.
8. It appears that the Petitioner is in the habit of filing such frivolous and irresponsible Petitions. In the case of Dattaraj N. Thaware (supra), the Supreme Court clearly guarded the Courts against entertaining frivolous public interest litigations which are primarily intended as publicity petitions and in substance are abuse of the judicial process. It is the duty of the Court and of some importance that disgruntled persons are not permitted to abuse the public interest litigation. The locus standi of the Petitioner itself will be questionable in the present Petition besides that it has no substance in fact and in law. What should be the economic policy of the country, how a political parties should act and how the President of India or the Speaker have to perform their functions, by no stretch of imagination, falls within the ambit of writ jurisdiction. A Petition titled 'Public Interest Litigation' is nothing but a camouflage to create publicity interest litigation that too devoid of any merits.
9. The lawyer's profession is a very noble profession with rich heritage and high values. It is not expected of an Advocate to bring such frivolous Petitions before the Court as nobody else is better informed than them of the limitations of judicial process in Courts. They are expected to contribute with objectivity and positivity towards the administration of justice. The present Petition is devoid of any proper facts and law. It does not satisfy any of the stated ingredients of Public Interest Litigation. In fact, the very locus of the Petitioner to institute such a Petition is questionable, which would have to be answered in the negative and against the Petitioner. Such repeated attitude of the Petitioner ostracize him from that class of lawyers. The writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by marked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interests indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. (Reference : Dattaraj N. Thaware, (supra)).
10. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the present Petition is not only an abuse of the process of the Court but is noxious to the clean administration of justice delivery system. After the dismissal of the first Petition, the Court would have expected the Petitioner to ameliorate his professional skills, but unfortunately he has taken a retrogrative step. May be it is not possible to define the limitation of public interest litigation with exactitude, but certainly taken in its perspective and understood in its most liberal construction, such Petition can never fall within the parameters or settled percepts of law.
11. Thus, we dismiss this Public Interest Litigation, but taking a liberal attitude, we impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) which shall be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today.
12. In view of the dismissal of the Petition, nothing survives in the Civil Application and the same is dismissed.