Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Heard Sri. Rajesh R. Nair, the learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the learned senior counsel representing the State Bankof India [SBI] and their General Manager.

2. The petitioner claims to be the Coordinator of the National Council for Peoples Right To Information, Perinthalmanna. Projecting himself to be a conscious citizen, he has filed this Public Interest Litigation [PIL] alleging security lapse in the conduct of banking operation by the SBI. The allegation is based on the news paper report dated 1.2.2019, which, according to the petitioner, indicated that there are serious lapses by the Bank and this has resulted in customer data leakage and disruption of online services. With this projection, the petitioner seeks investigation by an independent agency, and a further direction on the General Manager of the SBI to remit Rs.5 Crore to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority [KELSA].

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stoutly denying the allegation that there was any leakage of the customers' data, maintained by the SBI. On the specific allegation relating to compromising the interest of the Bank's customers, the respondents assert that the customers details are fully secure in the servers maintained by the SBI, and there are enough inbuilt safeguards in the conveyance of data, for the usual banking transactions. The allegations made in the PIL were therefore described as “false” and “irresponsible”. On the minimal disruption of the ATM operations on 31.1.2019, the same is projected to be on account of the connectivity issue at the Hyderabad Centre and not because of any data compromise.

4. When the respondents projected as above and the petitioner had no explanation, the Court felt that the PIL mechanism is being misutilised by the litigant since he made no verification of the material, which was the basis for the litigation. Accordingly, time was granted to him to file his response.

5. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner on 30.5.2019 is perused. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner couldn't indicate any basis for the case projected in the PIL that, data of the customers was compromised by the failure of the SBIauthorities. But most surprisingly even without any material support, the petitioner reiterates the irresponsible and incorrect assertion made in the PIL.

6. The above would suggest that this was a frivolous petition filed by a busybody. The petitioner claims himself to be a social worker and the Co-Ordinator of the National Councilfor Peoples Right To Information, but he does not indicate any past activity from which one can verify the credential of the litigant. In this connection, we must remind ourselves that, as early as in 2010, the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others reported in (2010)3 SCC 402 issued the following guidelines:

“ …...................... ….........…...................... ..........................

181. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other courts in a number of judgments. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immedi