Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, Partha Sarthy, JJ.
Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature At Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21341 of 2018
Decided On : 14-01-2020
Dinesh Kumar (In Person), Advocate, Satyabir Bharti, Advocate, Bipin Kr Sinha, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Locus Standi to file PIL – Where a person is a stranger/unknown to parties and has no interest in outcome of litigation, he can hardly claim locus-standi to file such petition – There could be cases where a public spirited person bona-fide brings petition in relation to violation of fundamental rights, particularly in habeas corpus petitions, but even in such cases, the person should have some demonstrable interest or relationship to involved person, personally or for benefit of public at large, in a PIL – But in all such cases, it is essential that petitioner must exhibit bonafide, by truthful and cautious exercise of such right. (Para 23)
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation – Petitioner seeking order commanding Respondents to lodge F.I.R. against all judicial and non-judicial staff of Patna District Court whose indulgence in bribery and corrupt behavior has been exposed by Republic TV sting operation conducted and broadcast in November 2017 – Petitioner has locus standi to bring this petition as he is an Advocate of this Court and he has every right and duty to protect the institution that too from corruption – Fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted and it is duty of Court to take hard decision to eradicate this disease as it may not take shape of epidemic and pollute foundation of democratic set up itself and it should be nipped in the bud at the earliest otherwise it is likely to cause turbulence shaking faith of people of republic and it may lead to destruction of socio-economic-political-system of a healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrant society – Claim of petitioner is that this Court should give direction to lodge criminal case and same should be investigated by C.B.I. – Powers under Articles 32 and 226 of Constitution of India are wide to pass order for investigation by any agency in suitable matter but, court must bear in mind certain limitations on exercise of these Constitutional powers – This writ petition cannot be treated to be publicity interest litigation – All material should be placed before Chief Justice to take a decision accordingly with respect to lodging of a criminal case. (Paras 14, 17, 18, 20, 25 and 26)
2000 Cr.L.J. 1401 SC ~ (2000) 5 SCC 88; (2018) 6 SCC 72; (2000) 5 SCC 88 – Referred.
(2013) 2 SCC 398 ; (2014) 10 SCC 406; (1991)4 SCC 406 ; (1994) 4 SCC 687 – Relied.
JUDGMENT
Shivaji Pandey, J. - Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar, in person and Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Patna High Court as also counsel for the C.B.I.
2. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, in the present writ petition, has sought following relief:-
"1(i) For the issuance of a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/ order commanding the Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to lodge an F.I.R. against all the judicial and non-judicial staff of Patna District Court whose indulgence in bribery and corrupt behavior has been exposed by the Republic TV sting operation conducted and broadcast in November 2017.
(ii) For the issuance of a writ of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/ order commanding the respondent No.5 to investigate, within a given time-frame and under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court, the entirety of criminal conduct shown in the Republic TV sting wherein rampant, shameless and naked bribery in the District Court at Patna has been fully exposed.
(iii) For the issuance of a writ of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ/direction/ order commanding the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to explain the reasons for the inordinate delay in loding a criminal case (an F.I.R.) against the officers/staff exposed in the string and also delay in taking adequate disciplinary action against these officers and employees."
3. Mr. Dinesh Kumar is a practicing advocate of this Court and has filed this public interest litigation bringing to the notice of this Court that on evening of the 15th November, 2017, Republic T.V. a private news channel, broadcast a news item titled Cash for Justice. The news programme running into over an hour and a half presented videographic evidence (secretly recorded by the news channel) of rampant corruption by way of bribery in the District Court, Patna. The record room, the Certified Copy Delivery Section and the court staff of the District Judge, Patna were caught on videotape not just demanding bribes but actually robbing the litigants, lawyers' clerk and lawyers. The sting videography also shows that certain lawyers compromising their professional integrity by encouraging others to pay. The most shocking, shameless and brutally anti-public face of the judiciary was exposed by the contents of the sting recorded in the court of Sri R.N. Tripathi, ADJ-cum-Special Judge (Excise and Prohibition). It has been stated that his court staffs apparently in collusion with the judge were caught on videotape demanding and accepting bribe money from the Munshis and prisoners. The court staff can be seen asking for money at different rates for being sent to different jails, Beur for a higher price and Phulwari Sharif Jail for a lower price which clearly amounts to sale of judicial orders as the order is dictated and signed by the judge. Whether a prisoner will go to jail A or B is decided by the judge and hence any demand of money on this score is clearly for and on behalf of the judge. It has been alleged that the respondents have done nothing except suspension of 16 employees of the court despite the extremely serious nature of the offence. The contents of the videotapes of the Republic TV sting are available on the Internet (You Tube) and made a prayer that this Court should direct the Republic T.V. to produce before this Court the entire video tape for assistance of this Court. It has further been reminded that the High Court should be tough and no-nonsense in dealing with scam cases. In the Fodder scam, the Patna high Court had displayed toughness towards the accused first in ordering a C.B.I. probe and then in sending them to jail. It has also been mentioned about the food grain scam, police uniform scam, SSC question paper leak cases where the Patna High Court displayed remarkable firmness in jailing the accused and keeping them in jail for long periods. The bribery scandal affecting the district judiciary, the respondents have done nothing to bring the culprits to boo
