The court emphasized the need for substantial public interest and genuine public harm or injury in entertaining a Public Interest Litigation.

G. Rohini, C.J.:--

1. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, filed this writ petition as a public interest litigation seeking a mandamus directing the CBI to register a case and to undertake investigation in accordance with law on the basis of the statements in a blog (website) about the continuation of an Additional Judge in Madras High Court.

2. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the statements in the said blog disclosed the commission of various cognizable offences including the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code, 1872 (IPC) relating to screening of offenders and therefore, the authorities concerned ought to have initiated action as required under Section 154 or/and Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Alleging that the authorities concerned failed to perform their statutory duty, the petitioner contends that it is a fit matter to issue a mandamus directing the respondent/CBI to register a case forthwith and to undertake the investigation into the whole issue.

3. We have heard the petitioner appearing in person.

4. A perusal of the printout of the blog, on the basis of which the petitioner sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, shows that the contents therein relates to extension of term granted to an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court. It was stated in the blog that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) had found enough material against the Additional Judge about corruption and that in view of the IB report, the Supreme Court collegium had initially recommended that he should be discontinued after his two years term was over and that the said recommendation was also sent to the Central Government. However, a political party in Tamil Nadu which was one of allies of the Central Government in power at that time had strongly objected to the recommendations made by the collegium and brought pressure upon the Central Government. In pursuance thereof, the then Chief Justice of India was requested to continue the term of the Additional Judge and thereupon the Chief Justice of India on his own, without consulting the other members of the collegium, wrote a letter to the Government of India for extension and thus, the term as Additional Judge was extended for one more year.

5. The petitioner who appeared in person vehemently contends that since the corrupt practices exposed in the blog are with regard to the appointment to the highest judiciary in the State, it is essential to make a thorough inquiry and to initiate action against the offenders so as to uphold the esteem of the justice administration system.

6. We may at the outset point out that the validity of the permanent appointment of the Additional Judge of Madras High Court, whose extension of term as Additional Judge was referred to in the blog, was in fact considered by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation in Shanti Bhushan and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 657. The allegation was that the appointment was in violation of the law declared in Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association & Anr. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441 that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has to be formed collectively after taking into account the views of his senior colleagues who are required to be consulted by him for the formation of opinion. It was alleged by the petitioner therein that no such opinion was formed. Having regard to the fact that the Additional Judge who was already confirmed by that time was due to retire, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the appointment, however, it was observed that a person who is not suitable to be appointed as a permanent judge on the ground of unsuitability due to adverse factors should not be continued as an Additional Judge and it is for the Chief Justice of India to adopt such modalities which according to him would be relevant for taking a decision in the matter.

7. In view of the said decisio