The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent the abuse of public interest litigation and to ensure that genuine public issues are protected. The court emphasizes the importance of aligning with the principles established by the Supreme Court in preventing frivolous petitions and upholding the integrity of the justice delivery system.

Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ. and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. –

The petition, which has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of a part of sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, which has been framed by this Court, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 402 , for governing the filing of petitions in public interest. Sub-rule (3-A) was introduced with effect from 1.5.2010 and reads as follows:

"(3-A). In addition to satisfying the requirements of the other rules in this Chapter, the petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse; that he has no personal or private interest in the matter; that there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court or High Court on the question raised; and that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or anyone associated with him, or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State."

2. The petitioner has challenged a portion of this rule. The relief which has been sought, is thus:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari striking down "or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State" from sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules and declaring it as ultra vires."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of sub-rule (3-A) which requires that a petitioner seeking to file a public interest litigation, must state on affidavit that the result of the litigation will not lead to any undue loss to any person, body of persons or the State.

4. The submissions, which have been urged before the Court, are that (i) the decision of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) does not contain any guideline or rule of the nature that is questioned in these proceedings; (ii) save and except for the Kerala High Court, such a requirement has not been introduced in the rules of other High Courts; (iii) the expression 'undue loss' has not been defined and is, hence, vague; (iv) every petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is bound to result in a loss to one of the litigating parties and a gain to the other, and in a petition which is filed against the State or its instrumentalities, a loss would be sustained by the State, if its action is struck down; (v) there was no need for the High Court to frame the rule in question since, if a petition is frivolous, it is open to the Court, in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, to dismiss such petition; and (vi) the operation of the rule would result in a deprivation of the right of a public interest litigant to file a writ petition.

5. The genesis of sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 1, is that the process of the Court should not be abused by filing petitions ostensibly in public interest, though actuated by oblique motives or for extraneous purposes. Public interest litigation, in our country, emerged as an instrument of espousing genuine public causes where persons, on whose behalf the litigation is instituted, suffer from a disability, primarily of a social or economic nature which precludes such a person or class of persons from seeking access to justice [See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1984 SC 802 ]. As the evolution of public interest litigation in the country shows, petitions were brought on behalf of bonded labourers [Bandhua Mukti Marcha (supra)], under-trial prisoners who are deprived of their fundamental rights [See Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 ; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 141 : Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 196], persons who are differently abled [See Union of India & Anot