J U D G M E N T

Index to the Judgment Factual Backdrop & Reliefs Sought .................................................. 4 (I) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023 ................................................................. 5 (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023 ............................................................... 11 (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023 ............................................................... 16 Arguments Addressed By The Parties............................................. 19 (i) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023 ............................................................... 19 (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023 ............................................................... 21 (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023 ............................................................... 21 Issues In A Nutshell ........................................................................... 22 Analysis And Findings ...................................................................... 23 (i) Scope of Article 21 of Indian Constitution ............................. 23 (i) W.P.(Crl) 1797/2023 ............................................................... 24 (ii) W.P.(Crl) 1798/2023 ............................................................... 27 (iii) W.P.(Crl) 1809/2023 ............................................................... 30 Striking Balance Between Free Access To Justice And Preventing Abuse Of Process Of Law ................................................................. 32 Frivolous Or Vexatious Litigation: Meaning And Legal Framework ......................................................................................... 34 Self-Represented Litigants: Ethical Concerns ................................ 38 Deterring Frivolous Litigation ......................................................... 41 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 46 SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. In India, the judicial system is burdened with overwhelming caseload, leading to significant backlog of cases in the Courts. On one hand, there are meritorious litigants with legitimate legal claims who seek to have their rights determined through petitions or by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is also no dearth of trivial pursuits of legal remedies, wasting judicial adjudicatory time of the Court. It is evident that such frivolous and meritless litigation, which is significantly large in number, contributes to the existing caseload. This necessitates immediate attention by all stakeholders who have responsibility of ensuring speedy and quality justice.

2. The present case is a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation, where this Court encounters incoherent and confusing stories in the name of facts and absurd reliefs.

3. The petitioner herein is, as disclosed from the petition, an alumni of IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, and has worked as an academician at IIT Delhi and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Mumbai, who alleges that his fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed which extends to his „right to have public organisations that are not criminally established‟. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are involved in criminal activities, and have established various public organisations criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental right in above terms. The petitioner also claims that his „right to have access to one‟s own criminal records‟, covered under Article 21, has also been infringed by the respondents.

4. Thus, by way of present petitions, the petitioner has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

FACTUAL BACKDROP & RELIEFS SOUGHT

5. While avoiding unnecessary and confusing factual background mentioned in the petitions, briefly stated, as per petitioner, the „protagonists