SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Naresh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(Cr) 1797 of 2023, W.P.(Cr) 1798 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 16735 of 2023 (exemption) and W.P.(Cr) 1809 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 16772 of 2023 (exemption)
Decided On : 20-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, for UOI along with Mr. Sunil, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC, for the State along with Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar, Advocates and with Insp. Subhash Chand, P.S. Parliament Street.

Frivolous and vexatious litigation is an abuse of the process of law and can be dismissed by the Court with costs.

Headnote:

The Court dismissed three writ petitions filed by the petitioner, finding them frivolous and vexatious. The petitioner had made baseless allegations against various respondents, including government officials, companies, and institutions, without providing any evidence to support his claims. The Court held that the petitioner's petitions were an abuse of process and imposed costs on him as a deterrent.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an IIT and TIFR alumnus, filed three writ petitions invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He claimed that his fundamental right under Article 21 had been infringed due to the criminal activities of the respondents, including Tata companies and government officials. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the prosecution of the respondents, the demolition of the new Parliament building, and the confiscation of the properties of the Tata companies.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's claims were baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The Court noted that the petitioner had leveled bald allegations against the respondents without providing any specific details or incidents to substantiate his claims. The Court also found that the petitioner's petitions were frivolous and vexatious, as they were an abuse of the process of law and caused inconvenience to the respondents.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India had been infringed. 2. Whether the petitions filed by the petitioner were frivolous and vexatious.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 had not been infringed. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to show how his individual fundamental right had been violated by the respondents. The Court also held that the petitions filed by the petitioner were frivolous and vexatious. The Court noted that the petitioner had made baseless allegations against the respondents without providing any evidence to support his claims. The Court also found that the petitioner's petitions were an abuse of the process of law and caused inconvenience to the respondents.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the three writ petitions filed by the petitioner with costs of Rs.30,000/- in each petition.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

    Factual Backdrop & Reliefs Sought

    (I) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023

    (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023

    (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023

    Arguments Addressed By The Parties

    (i) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023

    (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023

    (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023

    Issues In A Nutshell

    Analysis And Findings

    (i) Scope of Article 21 of Indian Constitution

    (i) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023

    (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023

    (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023

    Striking Balance Between Free Access To Justice And Preventing Abuse Of Process Of Law

    Frivolous Or Vexatious Litigation: Meaning And Legal Framework

    Self-Represented Litigants: Ethical Concerns Deterring Frivolous Litigation

    Conclusion

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. In India, the judicial system is burdened with overwhelming caseload, leading to significant backlog of cases in the Courts. On one hand, there are meritorious litigants with legitimate legal claims who seek to have their rights determined through petitions or by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is also no dearth of trivial pursuits of legal remedies, wasting judicial adjudicatory time of the Court. It is evident that such frivolous and meritless litigation, which is significantly large in number, contributes to the existing caseload. This necessitates immediate attention by all stakeholders who have responsibility of ensuring speedy and quality justice.

2. The present case is a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation, where this Court encounters incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs.

3. The petitioner herein is, as disclosed from the petition, an alumni of IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, and has worked as an academician at IIT Delhi and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Mumbai, who alleges that his fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed which extends to his `right to have public organisations that are not criminally established'. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are involved in criminal activities, and have established various public organisations criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental right in above terms. The petitioner also claims that his `right to have access to one's own criminal records', covered under Article 21, has also been infringed by the respondents.

4. Thus, by way of present petitions, the petitioner has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

FACTUAL BACKDROP & RELIEFS SOUGHT

5. While avoiding unnecessary and confusing factual background mentioned in the petitions, briefly stated, as per petitioner, the `protagonists of this story' are the criminals who have been masquerading as the top leaders and officials of this country but in reality, have left no stone unturned in destroying it.

(I) W.P.(CRL) 1797/2023

6. At the outset, this Court acknowledges that the persons and organisations that have been impleaded as respondents in the present petition generate curiosity and raise concern at the same time. To put things into context, the list of respondents is reproduced as under:

    R-1: Union of India

    R-2: Delhi Police,

    R-3: Mumbai Police,

    R-4: Bengaluru Police

    R-5: Sir Dorabji Tata Trust,

    R-6: Sir Ratan Tata Trust

    R-7: Tata Companies including and especially Tata Sons Private Limited

    R-8: Public Organisations, where R.5 or 6 are involved and these include: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Tata Memorial Centre, Indian Institute of Science, National Centre of Performing Arts, International Institute for Population Sciences etc

    R-9: Government Ministries, Departments, organisations that colluded with or whose actions aided the Tatas in their crimes, even if without any overt connection such as by designing fake Forms, or improperly participated in the criminal situation including not revealing th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top