1. Writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968 — history of repeated unsuccessful public interest litigations and disparaging communications to judicial officers. (Para 3 , 19 , 22 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 597
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
Suraz India Trust - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 880 OF 2016
Decided On : 01-05-2017
IMPORTANT POINT
A litigant would be liable for exemplary cost for wasting judicial time on unfounded allegations in form of PIL.
Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Supreme Court Rules – Constitution of Benches – Two Judge Division Bench ordering placement of matter before larger Bench – Matter placed before three Judge Bench – Petitioner’s assumption that matter ought to be placed before an eleven Judge Bench mere imagination – No legal foundation – Shows only immaturity of the petitioner of legal issues. (Para 20, 21)
(b) Judges Enquiry Act, 1968 – Section 3 – Suraz India Trust challenging validity – Praying for its striking down – Incomprehensible as to why the trust should pursue such a cause? (Para 22)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 129 – On dismissal of writ petition the petitioner Suraz India Trust repeatedly filing contempt petitions against Secretary General and sitting Chief Justice of Supreme Court among others – Wholly groundless, baseless and ill-founded – None of 64 petitions succeeding – All petitions filed by Registry being not maintainable – Not unjustified – Petitioner wasting judicial time of Supreme Court – Serious matter – Suraz India Trust restrained from filing any cause in public interest, before any Court in the country – Similarly, its Chairman Mr. Rajiv Daiya restrained from filing any cause in public interest, either directly or through any other individual, hereinafter, in any Court – Suraz India Trust and/or Mr. Rajiv Daiya directed to place instant judgment on record of all pending matters initiated by them, before Supreme Court or before any other High Court, if they do not decide to withdraw the same unilaterally – Exemplary cost of Rs.25 lakhs imposed for wasting judicial time. (Para 23, 24, 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner Suraz India Trust had filed PIL for striking down section 3 of the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968. Two Judge Bench directed the matter to be placed before larger Bench. Matter was placed before three Judge Bench whereas in petitioners’ perception it should have been placed a Bench of 11 Judges.
Petitioners filed contempt petitions against six Judges of Rajasthan High Court as also its Chief Justice.
Petitioners also filed 64 petitions before Supreme Court alleging contempt against three Judges and the Chief Justice as also the Secretary General.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners should refrain themselves fro filing any PIl in any court in the country. They should unilaterally withdraw any such petition filed in any court in the country.
Result: Writ petition and all other petitions dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25 lakhs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that a referral to a larger bench required a bench of eleven judges — allegation of judicial dishonesty and administrative apathy in handling petitions. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Litigation found to be frivolous and thoughtless — repeated filing of meritless petitions and groundless contempt proceedings constitutes an abuse of judicial time and process. (Para 4 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Litigants who repeatedly file meritless petitions and waste judicial time may be barred from future filings and subjected to exemplary costs to prevent abuse of process. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
5. Petitioner barred from filing public interest litigations in any court — exemplary costs imposed for wasting judicial time. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 )
6. What are the consequences for a litigant who repeatedly files frivolous and meritless public interest litigations?
The court may impose exemplary costs and prohibit the litigant from filing further public interest litigations in any court to prevent the abuse of judicial time and process. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
7. Does a referral by a two-judge bench to a larger bench necessarily imply a bench of a specific high number of judges?
No. A referral by a two-judge bench to a larger bench is satisfied if the matter is subsequently heard by a three-judge bench, provided the Chief Justice exercises administrative discretion. (Para 20 )
8. How does the court view the act of sending disparaging communications to judges at their private residences?
Such actions are viewed as unjustified and a serious remiss in judicial interventions, potentially warranting stern action to protect the dignity of the judiciary. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
1. The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. When the instant writ petition originally came up for hearing on 27.3.2017, this Court passed the following order:
“1. Mr. Rajiv Daiya has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. He is not a qualified advocate, but he appears in this case in-person, on behalf of the Suraz India Trust, in his capacity as its Chairman. We have had the opportunity to hear him on some occasions. In the above view of the matter, the Registry was required to furnish to this Court, details of all the petitions filed by Suraz India Trust. In compliance thereof, the same have been provided to us, in a separate compilation.
2. One set of the aforesaid compilation has been handed over to Mr. Daiya in the Court today. We would request him to respond to the same, so as to enable us to determine whether he should be permitted to file petitions in public interest, on account of the apparent indication in the compilation furnished to him, that he has never succeeded in any petition despite the long list of cases filed on behalf of Suraz India Trust. He may respond, within four weeks from today.
3. Post of hearing on 24th April, 2017.” (emphasis is ours)
3. It is necessary to record, that the details of all the petitions, filed by Suraz India Trust, were placed on the record of this case, by the Registry, on the asking of the Chief Justice (in his administrative capacity). The information had been sought by him, because on earlier occasions, petitions filed by Suraz India Trust (-all raising causes in public interest), were found to be devoid of any merit, and were summarily dismissed. A brief summary thereof, is being extracted hereunder:
“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PIL (WRIT) SECTION
The status of matters filed by Suraz India Trust is given below:
The matters summarized above, were taken up for hearing, in 64 different proceedings. The summary extracted hereinabove, affirms the position, that Suraz India Trust, has not been successful in any matter.
| Sl. No. | Nature of Matter | Date of Filing | Relief Sought | Status/ Remarks |
| 1 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 136/2009 | 26.3.2009 | (a) Direct the respondent Election Commission of India to follow the mandatory provisions of rule 49-B(1) of the Rules of 1961 meant for preparation of balloting unit of voting machine in the forthcoming MP election of 2009 containing such particulars and such language which may enable the Elector to formally express his choice by ballot in case he decides to refrain from voting | Dismissed on 4.5.2009 |
| (ii) R.P.(C) No. 1041/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 136/2009 | 19.5.2009 | (a) The order impugned dated 4.5.2009 may kindly be recalled and reviewed, and the written submissions may kindly be ordered to be taken on record and the same may kindly be ordered to be treated as part and parcel of the review petition, and the notice may kindly be issued to the Election Commission as the onus to prove their action shift upon the respondent in view of the settled proposition of law laid down in the cases and as averred hereinabove in para 6(E), and the writ petition may kindly be ordered to be tagged and adjudicated with the Writ Petition No. 161 of 2004 (PUCL & anr. vs. UOI & anr.) | Dismissed on 15.9.2009 | |
| 2 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 241/2009 | 4.5.2009 | (a) Declare the provisions of rule 2(1)(c), 4(1), 5(3), 5(5)(ii), 6, 7(1)(b), 9(1), 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the Rajasthan Right to Information (High Court & Subordinate Court) Rules, 2006 as ultra virus same being inconsistent with and in contravention to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 | Dismissed as withdrawn on 14.9.2009 |
| 3 | (i) W.P.(C) No. 280/2009 | 25.6.2009 | (a) Declare the provisions of Rule 3 of Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as ultra-virus same being inconsistent with and in contravention to the provisions of Article 137 and 145 so | |
