The court underscored that frivolous PILs undermine judicial credibility and should be dismissed at the threshold, asserting such petitions should address genuine public grievances rather than personal or political agendas.

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner before this Court, who is appearing in person, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation ("PIL") seeking a prohibition of affixing photographs of gods/goddesses on walls to prevent public urination, spitting on and littering around such sacred images. The Petitioner, who is a practising advocate, states that he is a public-spirited person and has filed several PILs in the interest of the general public.

2. It is stated by the Petitioner that he has made representations to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD"), New Delhi Municipal Council ("NDMC"), the Delhi Cantonment Board ("DCB") and the Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD") apprising the authorities of the issue pertaining to affixation of photographs of religious deities on walls to prevent public urination, spitting and littering. The use of such photographs in various places leads to hurting religious sentiments of the public at large and therefore the Petitioner requested the various authorities to prohibit the affixation of such images on walls.

3. The Petitioner contends that such use of sacred images of religious deities on walls is in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner further states that this Court has acknowledged the menace created by public urination in its order dated 26.03.2014 passed in Manoj Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., W.P.(C.) 1969/2014. The order dated 26.03.2014 passed by this Court reads as under:

"1. The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way. The petitioner has filed photographs showing that residents of buildings and especially Group Housing Complex, fed up with the Indian habit of relieving the pressure on the bladder by unzipping and peeing on the first wall seen by the person is sought to be curtailed, if not at all prohibited, by affixing photographs deities on the walls. The hope would be that man, the greatest creation of the infinite artist, would not dare his privies in front of his lord and would not urinate on the road.

2. In spite thereof, the photographs evidence that the pressure on the bladder is blatantly relieved by virtually peeing on the photographs of once God.

3. Not only that the photographs at page 26 would reveal that to shame the offender the owners of the complex have written graffiti that "Look here a dog and a donkey is peeing". In spite thereof, a man is seen peeing on the wall.

4. Now, nobody can prevent a person from affixing photographs of deities on the walls of his house or on the walls of a Group Housing Complex. The direction sought to be issued against the residents that photographs of Gods be directed to be removed cannot be issued by us. The menace of urinating in public has to be solved elsewhere.

5. Surely this Court cannot makes a man walks out of his house his zip should be locked.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of."

4. The Court in the aforesaid order has in clear terms stated that the solution to the menace of public urination lies elsewhere and not before the Court. This Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot pass the directions which are being sought for in the present PIL. It is unfortunate that the Petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, has approached this Court and filed a PIL, being aware of the aforesaid order wherein a similar plea was raised. The present PIL is nothing but a sheer abuse of the doctrine of Public Interest Litigation developed by the judiciary as a tool to espouse the cause of the opp