SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
Janata Dal and Ors. etc. etc. - Appellants
versus
H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Appeal Nos. 304 to 311 of 1991
With
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 114 of 1991
All decided on 28-8-1992

IMPORTANT POINTS
A vexatious petition under the colour of Public Interest Litigation brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance or for personal gain or political motive or any oblique consideration, deserves rejection at the threshold.
2. In Bofors case, order of Hon' ble Justice M.K. Chawla directing the office of the High Court to register suo moto proceedings in exercise of his discretionary revisional and inherent powers, to quash the F.I.R. and the proceedings connected therewith is not sustainable when the matter is under serious investigation.

Headnote:(i) Public Interest Litigation - Scope and Object of; - Its origin and meaning - Profound transformation of the developing and growing PIL in modern society - Legitimacy of the PIL - Parameters for entertaining a Public Interest Litigation - No hard and fast rules have yet been formulated and no comprehensive guidelines have been evolved - Requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory Any person having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique consideration is given right of locus standi - A broad rule is evolved giving right of locus standi to any member of the public acting bona Fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public ,injury, but who is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.

       Held: That this summit Court has widely enlarged the scope of PIL by relaxing and liberalising the rule of standing by treating letters or petitions sent by any person or association complaining violation of any fundamental rights and also entertaining Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by public spirited and policy oriented activist persons or journalists or of any organisation rejecting serious challenges made with regard to the maintainability of such petitions rendered many virtuosic pronouncements and issued manifold directions to the Central and the State Governments, all local and other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India for the betterment of the public at large in many fields in conformity with constitutional prescriptions of what constitutes the good life in a socially just democracy. The newly invented proposition of law laid down by many learned Judges of this Court in the arena of PIL irrefutably and manifestly establish that our dynamic activism in the field of PIL is by no means less than those of other activist judicial systems in other parts of the world. (Para 32)

       It may not be out of place to mention here that there may be numerous circumstances justifying the entertaining of Public Interest Litigation but we cannot obviously enumerate an exhaustive list of all such situations. (Para 33)

       Further held: While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration. (Para 36)

       Consequently held: 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 any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold. (Para 37)

       (ii) Bofors Case - Constitution of India Article 51A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B r/ws 161, 162, 163, 164 & 165A - First Information Report filed for the offences under - Petition under Article 51A for quashing the F.I.R. alleging that the onset of the investigation is biased, unfair and unethical and the procedure adopted is in utter violation of the provisions of the Constitution. Dismissed Petitioner has no locus standi at all to file these petitions - There is no involvement of public interest - The petition under article 51 A cannot come within the meaning and scope of public interest litigation.

       Held: Before the Special Judge, he filed the petition under article 51 A of the Constitution proclaiming that he being the General Secretary of an Organisation, calling itself as Rashtriya Jan Parishad which is devoted to uphold the Rule of Law and fight against injustice, has got a fundamental duty to inform the Court "regarding the activation of the complainant (CBI) in the aforesaid case which has tarnished the image, credibility of the nation and has also lowered the national prestige". According to him, the prosecution has been malevolently launched with rancour, stimulated by political vendetta after Shri V.P. Singh became the Prime Minister, who with his colleagues have attributed mendacious charges publicly, that there was payment of kickbacks and receipt of bribe from Bofors. (Para 41)

       The sum and substance of the inculpation as gathered from the averments made in the petition and the submissions made by Mr. Bhagat on behalf of H.S. Chowdhary, in short, are that those who were at the helm of affairs in the then Government during January 1990 in their attempt to lock horns with those who were in power of the then outgoing Government with malafide intention of vindicating their electoral rivalry have been instrumental in registration of the F.I.R. containing the unveracious and vile charges by using every possible trick and ruse at their command and disposal and making vociferous verbal attack with their lung power to settle their personal scores with their political opponents. The further attack against the author of the F.I.R. and the investigation agency is that the CBI under "pressure of its political masters in conspiracy with them have been giving recklessly the names of various leaders of this country to tarnish their image without any basis"; and the on-set of the investigation is biased, unfair and unethical and the procedure adopted is in utter violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the procedural law. (Para 42)

       A perusal of the petitions filed by H.S. Chowdhary before the Special Judge and the High Court clearly unfolds that Mr. Chowdhary appears to be very much concerned with the personal and private interest of the accused in the criminal case and there is absolutely no involvement of public interest. Can it be said that this litigation is in the nature of PIL to vindicate and effectuate the public interest? The emphatic answer would be 'Not even a single ray of the characteristic of public interest litigation is visibly seen'. (Para 46)

       Indeed, we are surprised to note that in the petition filed before the High Court, Mr. Chowdhary has stated that it is his duty to see that 'individuals' get justice from the Indian Courts. From whichever angle we survey and audit the contentions in both the petitions before the Courts below and the petition filed before this Court, there can be no escape except to come to the conclusion that Mr. Chowdhary has no locus standi at all to file these petitions, as found by the Courts below. (Para 47)

       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 and 482 - Revisional and Inherent Powers of the High Court - BOFORS CASE - Suo moto action of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - Whether Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla in exercise of his inherent power is justified in directing the office of the High Court to register a case so that the court exercise his discretionary, revisional and inherent powers to quash the F.I.R. and the proceedings connected therewith, stating that 'no offence' thereby meaning much less a cognizable offence is made out in the F.I.R.? - (No, the Hon'ble Justice has overstepped his jurisdiction and made the statement which is unwarranted and uncalled for)

       Held: After the prosecution of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to exercise of the extraordinary power under article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code in Bhajan Lal's case, we have given certain category of cases by way of illustrations wherein the power of quashing could be exercised either for preventing abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice stating that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficient channelised infrangible guidelines and rigid formula to give an exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. We do not like to prolong the discussion on this point any more. However, it has become necessary atleast to deal with the first alleged illegality. We are constrained to do so because of the assertion of the High Court; that being "that the First Information Report on the face of it does not disclose any offence" (Para 60)

       Further held: It shocks our judicial conscience that Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla before whom no aggrieved or affected party had come challenging the F.I.R, has taken suo moto action and recorded such a categorical assertion that 'no offence' thereby meaning muchless a cognizable offence is made out in the F.I.R. (Para 63)

       Result: Ordered accordingly.