Back
2003(8) Supreme 299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Pandey -Petitioner
versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 199 of 2003
Decided on 18-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : In-person.
Held : When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal case (supra) and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A 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. See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620). (Para 4)
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 the 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 injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and 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 motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. (Para 8)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 32-Writ petition by third person to convert death sentence of condemned prisoner to life imprisonment as sentence had not been executed for long time-Locus-Where petition styled as public interest litigation was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal interest, such petition was liable to be thrown out-Third party stranger could not be permitted to question the correctness of conviction and sentence.
Held : It was noted that Article 32 which finds a place in Part III of the Constitution entitled "fundamental rights" provides that right to move this Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred in that part is guaranteed. It empowers this Court to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The petitioner did not seek to enforce any of his fundamental rights nor did he complain that any of his fundamental right was violated. He sought to enforce the fundamental rights of others, namely, the two condemned convicts who themselves did not complain of their violation. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which the law recognizes as sufficient to permit another person, e.g. next friend, to move the court on his behalf. Unless an aggrieved party is under some disability recognized by law, it would be unsafe and hazardous to allow any third party be a member of the Bar to question the decision against third parties. Neither under the provisions of the Code nor under any other statute is a third party stranger permitted to question the correctness of the conviction and sentence. (Paras 30 to 32)
The legal document emphasizes that a third-party stranger does not have the locus standi to question the correctness of a conviction or sentence in a petition styled as public interest litigation. Such petitions, if found to be a camouflage for personal disputes, private malice, or publicity-seeking, should be dismissed. The court highlights the necessity for genuine public interest involvement, cautioning against misuse of the PIL mechanism for personal gains, political motives, or oblique considerations (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document clarifies that Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to approach the court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but this right is primarily reserved for the affected or aggrieved party. A third party, especially one who is not acting on behalf of a person with a legal disability such as a minor or insane individual, cannot invoke this right to challenge decisions or convictions of others (!) (!) (!) .
It also states that courts must exercise caution to prevent abuse of the judicial process by busybodies or meddlesome interlopers who lack a direct interest or concern in the matter. Such individuals should be rejected at the threshold, and petitions filed with oblique motives or for personal or political reasons should be dismissed, sometimes with costs, to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles underscore that PIL is a tool to address genuine public wrongs and not a means for personal, political, or private interests. Only individuals with a bona fide interest and sufficient concern are entitled to approach the court, and the court must remain vigilant to prevent its process from being misused by those with ulterior motives.
No. Only a person acting bona fide with sufficient genuine public interest has locus standi. Petitions by busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, or those acting for personal gain, political motive, or oblique consideration must be rejected at the threshold. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
PIL must involve genuine public interest, not personal gain, political motive, publicity, or oblique consideration. The petitioner must act bona fide with clean hands, clean mind, and clean objective. Information must be specific, not vague, and must show gravity and seriousness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
No. Ordinarily the aggrieved party alone has the right to seek redress. A third party may only act as next friend if the aggrieved party is a minor, insane, or has a recognized legal disability. A mere personal obsession does not constitute such disability. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
No. The court cannot make a roving enquiry based on unconfirmed or speculative information. The petition must be based on credible, specific information showing gravity and seriousness, and the petitioner must demonstrate sufficient interest and locus standi. (Para 13 )
No, not automatically. The court will not convert a death sentence based on speculative information or unconfirmed news. A genuine violation of Article 21 through mental torture must be established on credible grounds, not mere speculation. (Para 1 , 2 , 13 )
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) has been filed purportedly in public interest. The prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the death sentence imposed on one Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) by the Sessions Court, Alipur, West Bengal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and this Court, needs to be converted to a life sentence because there has been no execution of the death sentence for a long time. Reliance was placed on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat, (1989 (1) SCC 678).
2. According to the petitioner, he saw a news item in a TV channel wherein it was shown that the authorities were unaware about the non-execution of the death sentence and, therefore, condemned prisoner, the accused has suffered a great degree of mental torture and that itself is a ground for conversion of his death sentence to a life sentence on the basis of ratio in Triveniben s case (supra). It needs to be noted here that prayer for conversion of death sentence to life sentence has already been turned down by the Governor of West Bengal and the President of India in February 1994 and June 1994 respectively as stated in the petition. When the matter was placed for admission, we asked the petitioner who appeared in -person as to what was his locus standi and how a petition under Article 32 is maintainable on such nature of information by which he claims to have come to know of it. His answer was that as a public spirited citizen of the country, he has a locus to present the petition and when the matter involved life and liberty of a citizen, this Court should not stand on technicalities and should give effect to the ratio in Triveniben s case (supra). There has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the prolonged delay in execution of sentence is violative of Article 21, so far as the accused is concerned.
3. Reliance was also placed on few decision, for example, Sunil Batra (II) vs. Delhi Administration, (1980 (3) SCC 488; S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, (1981 (Supp.) SCC 87); Daya Singh vs. Union of India, (1991 (3) SCC 61 ) and Janata Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary, (1992 (4) SCC 305) to substantiate the plea that the petitioner had locus standi to present the petition in public interest and this was a genuine public interest litigation.
4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in The
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
