The High Court at Calcutta has issued a significant directive aimed at curbing the misuse of judicial processes by prolific litigants, signaling an urgent need for legislative intervention in West Bengal. In a recent proceeding, a division bench led by Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai emphasized that it is "high time" for the State of West Bengal to introduce a Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, modeled after similar statutory frameworks currently operational in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu. The court’s observations followed a detailed review of the filing history of Biplab Kumar Chowdhury, a petitioner who has become a frequent figure in the legal system through an exhaustive volume of applications and petitions.

The bench issued a firm procedural instruction to the High Court Registry, mandating that any future petition filed by Chowdhury that bears the characteristics of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) must undergo a preliminary judicial screening. Under this order, such petitions will not be automatically registered as PILs; instead, they must first be placed before an appropriate bench to determine whether the matter merits classification and hearing as a matter of public interest. This move is designed to safeguard judicial time and prevent the potential clogging of the docket by repetitive or unsubstantiated filings.

Quantifying the Scope of Filings

The court’s assessment was grounded in substantial evidence provided by the North Dum Dum Municipality, which argued that the petitioner had engaged in a persistent pattern of litigation and administrative inquiry. A compilation of documents submitted by the municipality revealed that, over the course of nine years, Chowdhury had initiated 316 applications under the Right to Information Act, generating over 1,000 individual queries. The court noted that these activities were accompanied by an extensive record of litigation, with previous judicial orders identifying that the petitioner had filed approximately 195 cases, including 43 PILs, in the High Court alone.

During the hearing, the North Dum Dum Municipality contended that this sustained volume of filings served as a misuse of both statutory RTI provisions and the constitutional writ jurisdiction. The municipality’s counsel highlighted that the State Information Commission had previously disposed of 549 cases initiated by the same petitioner in 2023. These figures were instrumental in the bench’s decision to call for structural reform rather than focusing solely on the individual case at hand. Although the court declined to restrict the petitioner's rights regarding future RTI applications at this specific stage, it clarified that the municipality retains the freedom to seek legal remedies, including initiating independent proceedings or invoking the court's writ jurisdiction, to address the perceived abuse of administrative processes.

Advocating for Legislative Reform

The court’s call for a Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act represents a broader institutional effort to streamline legal administration and deter the filing of frivolous or vexatious matters that strain the capacity of the judiciary. By directing the State’s Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, to consult with the Advocate General and advise the State Government on the necessity of this legislation, the bench has underscored the importance of proactive legal reform. The court expressed that such a law is essential for ensuring that the legal system remains accessible to legitimate grievances while mitigating the impact of disproportionate litigation patterns.

Throughout the proceedings, the court also addressed the status of costs previously imposed on the petitioner. The records indicate that the High Court had earlier directed the petitioner to pay costs of ₹25,000 and ₹50,000 in relation to earlier matters. In a show of compliance during the current proceedings, the petitioner tendered a demand draft for ₹50,000 in favour of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority. The court directed the Registry to facilitate the transfer of this amount to the designated legal services body, reinforcing the principle that compliance with judicial orders remains a prerequisite for those seeking the court’s indulgence.

The current petition, which brought these issues to the forefront, was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner, who sought to conclude the matter without further imposition of costs. Despite this withdrawal, the directives issued by the Chief Justice and Justice Rai remain in effect, specifically regarding the mandatory screening of the petitioner's future PIL-style filings. This structural mechanism serves as a safeguard, ensuring that future submissions are evaluated for their legal merit before they are permitted to proceed through the court’s formal channels. The court’s emphasis on the need for legislative consistency with other states suggests a turning point in how the High Court at Calcutta intends to manage institutional efficiency in the face of repetitive or burdensome litigation.