PIL Challenging Deputy CM's Portraits is 'Politically Motivated', Not in Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-10

Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses PIL on Deputy CM's Portraits, Cites 'Political Motive'

Amaravati: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the display of portraits of the Deputy Chief Minister in government offices across the state, ruling that the petition was "clearly politically motivated" and not a matter of genuine public interest. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, underscored the judiciary's role in curbing the misuse of PILs for extraneous considerations.

---

Case Background

The petition was filed by Mr. Yemu Kondal Rao, who argued that displaying the Deputy Chief Minister's pictures and portraits in state offices was an arbitrary action that violated the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the PIL was filed to safeguard public interest.

Court's Reasoning and Observations

The High Court swiftly rejected the petitioner's claims, expressing its inability to comprehend how the display of a portrait could infringe upon a citizen's constitutional rights. The bench observed, "We fail to understand as to how the display of a portrait or a picture in a Government office of a Deputy Chief Minister would in any manner affect any of the rights of a citizen under the Constitution in the absence of any specific statutory prohibition on such display."

The court was unequivocal in its assessment of the petitioner's intent, stating, "The petition is clearly filed with a political motive."

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

To fortify its decision, the bench extensively quoted two landmark Supreme Court judgments that established stringent guidelines for entertaining PILs.

1. Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra: The court cited this case to emphasize that PILs should not become "publicity interest litigation," "private interest litigation," or "politics interest litigation." The judgment warned against allowing the courts to be "polluted by unscrupulous litigants" and stated that petitions from "busybodies" filed for notoriety or cheap popularity "deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold."

2. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal: The bench referred to the directions issued by the Apex Court in this case to preserve the "purity and sanctity of the PIL." These directions mandate that courts must verify the petitioner's credentials and be satisfied that a substantial public interest is involved. A key directive highlighted was that courts must ensure "there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation."

Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment

In its concluding remarks, the High Court synthesized the facts with the established legal principles, delivering a concise and decisive verdict:

"Considering the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the law discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the present petition is clearly politically motivated and the same is, accordingly, dismissed."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the petition without imposing costs. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to potential litigants that the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation is a sacred tool for delivering social justice and not a platform for settling political scores or gaining publicity. The decision reinforces the judiciary's gatekeeping role in ensuring that only genuine public grievances are addressed through this extraordinary jurisdiction.