2022 Supreme(SC) 1147

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Shiv Shankar Sharma and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8233-8234 of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 10622-10623, 11364-11365 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Public Interest Litigations – What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is bona fide of petitioner who files PIL – It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of seemingly high public cause being espoused by petitioner in a PIL.
(2) On generalized averments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, Court cannot become a forum to investigate alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities.

Headnote:

(A) Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 – Public Interest Litigations – Maintainability – Allegations of large-scale corruption at hands of present Chief Minister of Jharkhand – Petitioner has actually sought investigation by Court – It prays for a writ of mandamus in this regard to Investigating Agencies such as CBI or Enforcement Directorate to investigate – This is again an abuse of process of Court – There is nothing placed before Court which in any way may be called to be prima facie evidence – Locus of petitioner is questionable – Writ court is not an appropriate forum for seeking an initiation of such an investigation – Fundamental requirement for issuance of a writ of mandamus is that petitioner must have sought such a relief before appropriate authority and only when it is denied Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus – What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is bona fide of petitioner who files PIL – It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined by Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of seemingly high public cause being espoused by petitioner in a PIL. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 12)

(B) Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 – Public Interest Litigations – Maintainability – Allegations of large-scale corruption at hands of present Chief Minister of Jharkhand – 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 even though Rules have not been followed that really will not come in way of Court to entertain a PIL, since nature of allegations in PIL was of a serious nature – This reasoning is a clear violation of Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B – Dismissal of a similar PIL was a fact which was also not disclosed by petitioner, which he would be duty bound to do so in view of Rule 4-B of Rules, 2010 – Locus of petitioner who initiates a PIL of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse process of Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause – Allegations which were made by petitioner are vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence – Allegations of corruption and siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without substantiating allegations in any manner whatsoever and is only asking Court to direct Central Bureau of Investigation or Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the matter – This is nothing but abuse of process of court – Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes – Allegations of respondent of money laundering through shell companies has not been supplemented by any kind of evidence – Non-disclosure of credentials of petitioner and past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under Rules, 2010 further discredits these petitions – Petitioner in PILs did not go with clean hands before High Court – On generalized averments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, Court cannot become a forum to investigate alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities – It was not proper for High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth – Order passed by Jharkhand High Court in PILs set aside. (Paras 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Question before this Court is whether the petitions which have been filed before Jharkhand High Court in the form of Public Interest Litigations are maintainable in view of settled position of law laid down by this Court in several of its earlier decisions. The question is also whether these PILs comply with the provisions of the Rules relating to the Public Interest Litigations, which is the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 and if

they do not, were the petitions filed as PILs liable to be dismissed at the very threshold if they were not in compliance of the provisions of the above Rules relating to PIL.

Findings of Court:

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. The non-disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under Rules, 2010 further discredits these petitions.

Result : Appeals allowed.