Back
2003 Supreme(All) 456
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Khem Karan and P. K. Chatterjee, JJ.
ASHOK PANDEY, ADVOCATE - Appellant
Versus
SATISH CHANDRA MISHRA (PRESENTLY, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF U. P.) - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 5849 (M/b) Of 2002
Decided On : 03/03/2003
PILs should be brought in good faith to vindicate the cause of justice and should not be actuated by personal gain or political motives.
Headnote:
PIL - Appointment of Advocate General, Interpretation of Constitution - Article 145(3), Article 165, Article 124(3) - The court dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of the Advocate General and raising various constitutional and political issues. The court emphasized the need for PILs to be bona fide and not actuated by personal gain or political motives. It held that the judiciary should not interfere in matters of constitutional and governmental policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, filed a PIL challenging the appointment of the Advocate General and raising various constitutional and political issues. The court found the PIL to be ill-advised, misconceived, and not bona fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the PIL was not brought in good faith and was aimed at gaining publicity. It emphasized that PILs should be filed to vindicate the cause of justice and not for personal gain or political motives.
Issues: The issues raised in the PIL included the appointment of the Advocate General, interpretation of constitutional provisions, and suggestions for constitutional amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for PILs to be bona fide and not actuated by personal gain or political motives. It held that the judiciary should not interfere in matters of constitutional and governmental policy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the PIL with a cost of Rs. 10,000, emphasizing that the petitioner's action was not bona fide. The request for a certificate for appeal to the Apex Court was also refused.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (for short P. I. L.) has been filed by a practicing lawyer of this Court, who by now is fairly known in the legal fraternity, at least at lucknow because of his earlier four PILs [writ Petition Nos. 4953 (M/b) of 1999, 1838 (M/b)of 2000, 4393 (M/b) of 2000 and 4957 (M/b) of 2001], filed in this Court at Lucknow, in a short span of two or three years, for espousal of one cause or the other. We were informed during the course of arguments that all. those four PILs were dismissed by this Court and in some of them not only a great displeasure was shown, but cost was also imposed on the petitioner, for filing untenable and ill-founded PILs. But undeterred by those severe strictures and the imposition of cost, the petitioner has again brought this PIL, raising the matters, most of which arc academic in nature than real one and some of them arc political in nature.
( 2 ) BEFORE we advert to the pleas taken in the writ petition, we would like to reproduce the reliefs sought in this writ petition, as in our view, the same would itself reveal the nature of this litigation :
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 1 as to how he accepted the appointment as Advocate General for the State of U. P. after being disqualified for the appointment as Judge of the High Court.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of appointment of sri S. C. Mishra, respondent No. 1 for the post of Advocate General, U. P. after summoning the same from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the rejection order passed by the Supreme Court collegium by means of which the recommendation made with regards to respondent No. 1 for Judge of the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court collegians after summoning the same from the concerned respondents.
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to reconsider the recommendation made by High Court collegium with regards to the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Judge of the High Court.
(v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India to take back the designation of Deputy Prime Minister given to Sri L. K. Advani and as the State governments not to create the new constitutional offices not created by the Constitution by using the words like acting, additional adhoc, Vice or Deputy before an office created by the constitution like Deputy Chief Minister or Additional Advocate General and to declare that "a" (single constitutional offices) can not be interpreted as plural with the help of Section 13 (2) of general Clause Act.
(vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to take necessary action against the defective working of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India to amend the Indian Constitution and to introduce so many good provisions quoted by the petitioner in the writ petition, in the Indian Constitution and the top offices of the country should be reserved for "natural born Indians".
(viii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of india to take mandamus directing the Government of India to take the necessary action to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of S. C. Advocate on record v. Union of india and the Presidential Reference Case No. 1 of 1998 and to constitute a commission for the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court, Judges.
(ix) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 4 as to how he is holding the office of Attorney General for India and direct the Government of India to remove the respondent No. 4 fro
