Public interest litigants must demonstrate credibility and offer substantial evidence, with proper parties included, to succeed in challenges against Government actions.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, CJ.

1. This writ petition, purportedly instituted in public interest, seeks to challenge the Government Order dated 12 December 2024 appointing Respondent No. 5 as Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project.

2. The Knowledge Economy Mission was initiated in the State of Kerala as a model to make the scheme more popular and effective, with the co- operation of local self-government institutions and the general public. A decision was taken on 7 September 2024 for the preparation of an action plan to make the activities of the Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM) more popular and effective. In the said meeting, the project undertaken by the Kerala Development and Innovation Strategic Council (K-DISC), Pathanamthitta, was found to be effective and it was decided to expand the activities of KKEM across the State under the name “Vijnana Keralam”. For co-ordination of the activities of Vijnana Keralam, the Government decided to appoint Respondent No. 5 as an Advisor, who has experience and expertise in this field. Respondent No. 5 agreed to render his services free of charge, and he was allowed a certain amount towards fuel and expenses. Accordingly, Exhibit-P1 Government Order was passed on 12 December 2024 appointing Respondent No. 5 as an Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project. He was permitted to use his own vehicle and was given ₹ 70,000/- per month to cover the expenses of travelling, including that of the driver, and Respondent No. 5 agreed to render his services, except for the reimbursement of his expenses, free of charge.

3. In the petition consisting of seven paragraphs, the main ground urged by the Petitioner is that Exhibit-P1 Government Order dated 12 December 2024 is issued by the Department of Planning, Finance (Development and Innovation), though there is no such department under the Government of Kerala. Therefore, Exhibit-P1 Government Order, which entails financial implications, is void. A cursory reference is also made in a single line to the effect that Exhibit-P1 order was issued by a person holding the rank of Ex officio Secretary, who had no authority to issue it without the approval of the Government.

4. Before proceeding, the Courts have to carefully examine the credentials of the petitioner invoking the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction, since a public interest litigant occupies a position of trust, and the Court has to ensure that he is worthy of such trust. In the Petition, the Petitioner only stated that he is a public activist espousing a public cause with no other particulars about himself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the above position in a series of decisions, namely, in the cases of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC 349, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 590, State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (VIII) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 613, Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 287 etc. Keeping this legal principle in mind, we called upon the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit.

5. The Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit giving particulars about himself, wherein it is stated that he is a driver and an RTI activist. The learned State Attorney, however, questioned the credentials of the Petitioner. By way of a memo, it was contended that the Petitioner had studied only up to the X Standard and was earlier engaged in tailoring work. Since 2012, he had worked for some time as a driver in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was sought to