The court emphasized the need for clear, manifest, and purposefully demonstrable pleadings in public interest litigation and clarified the limitations of the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. Almost five decades back Nobel laureate Samuel Beckett in his play "Waiting for Godot" through a character stated that in the immense confusion, one thing alone was clear that they were waiting for Godot.

2. In the case at hand one thing that gets frescoed and projected to the surface is that the Petitioner who has preferred this public interest litigation is embedded to play with words and usher in a sense of contradiction, irreconciliability and dichotomy. One may, in a different sphere of life, pronounce with heroics that he contradicts himself every moment and, therefore, he grows but, a significant one, the same has no allowance in the field of law. The pleadings, assertions, asseverations and the prayer sought in a writ petition, especially in a public interest litigation has to be clear, manifest, purposefully demonstrable and luculent making out a case that is relevant to public interest.

3. In the case at hand, the Petitioner in paragraphs 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31 has pleaded thus:

26. That the Respondents have taken a decision not to permit a group of persons to protest against the corruption and also not to allow any organization to speak against the corruption and for this reason the Respondents have not permitted a particular organization to carry out demonstrations and protest which is contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

27. xxx

28. That the object of law should be to expose the corrupt face of the Respondents but the Respondents are trying to prevent the organizations from fighting against corruption and for this reason the Respondents have not granted permission for demonstration though Justice P.B. Sawant Commission has found nothing wrong in the particular organization which is fighting against the corruption but despite that the permission was not accorded which is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

29. That the Constitution has provided that any citizen of India has a right to take demonstration and also protest against the public policy which is contrary to the interest of the common man and the fundamental right of the person cannot be evaded by the Respondents by not granting permission to the particular organization for demonstration against the corrupt practices of the Respondents and the Petitioner is one of the participants who believes that the Respondents are indulged in corrupt practices and the common man's interest is being evaded.

30. That the Constitution of India has provided that the Petitioner and other common man of the country has every right to speak and the said right cannot be allowed to be evaded and in the present case the Respondents have sealed the place itself and did not permit any individual to demonstrate against the Respondents and as upto date no organization has been stopped from taking demonstrations as all those organizations are connected with the political parties and hence Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been evaded by the Respondents.

31. That Article 14 embodies the general principles of equality before the law. A specific group of persons cannot be restrained from taking demonstration in Delhi. The Respondents as upto date have been allowing the demonstrations in the Parliament Street and it is admitted that every month the traffic of Delhi faces jam. But there should be a permanent solution to these problems and merely a particular organization is restrained then the problem will not be settled and solved and hence it would be just and proper if a particular is allotted for demonstration such as Burari or other outskirt of Delhi which are lying vacant and the demonstration will not cause any inconvenience to the public and hence the present petition.

4. Earlier to the aforesaid paragraphs, in paragraph 7, 8 and 9, it has been asserted as follows:

7. That the common man has the right to move the glory to live with dignity by carrying out a lawful profession or calling cannot be abridged in the name of mass p