'Publicity Interest Litigation': Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL on Non-Veg Shop Closures During Kanwar Yatra

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged shopkeepers dealing in non-vegetarian food were being forced to close their shops during the Kanwar Yatra, branding the petition a "Publicity Interest Litigation" filed with a mala fide intent. A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found the plea lacked substance and was an abuse of the PIL jurisdiction.

A Petition Built on Blank Notices

The petitioner, advocate Nasir Farooq, claimed that police in Amroha Nagar were compelling non-veg shop owners to shutter their businesses between July 30 and August 24, 2026, during the Kanwar Yatra. To support this, he annexed blank notices allegedly signed by the Incharge Inspector of Police Station Amroha Nagar. However, the petition nowhere disclosed the names of the shopkeepers who had received these notices, nor did it provide any evidence that the notices were actually enforced.

The Court's Scrutiny of Motives

The court observed that the petitioner's own conduct undermined the credibility of the plea. The bench noted that the same advocate had previously made representations seeking the closure of liquor shops along the Kanwar Yatra route—a move that revealed a contradictory and selective use of the legal process. "The petitioner, an Advocate, is seeking to project the case of the shopkeepers, which apparently is mala fide , inasmuch as, the same petitioner has made representations seeking closing down of the liquor shops on the 'Kanwar Yatra' route," the court stated.

Lack of Locus Standi and Actual Cause

The High Court emphasized that if any shopkeepers had genuinely been harassed, they themselves had the legal standing to challenge the action. "Nowhere in the petition, the names of shop-keepers on whom the notices alleged to have been served, have been disclosed and in case the notices have been served and enforced on any of the shop-keepers, the shop-keepers themselves have the cause to question the validity of the notice/action," the bench observed.

'Publicity Interest Litigation' vs. Public Interest

The court took strong exception to the filing of petitions without pleading actual cause or producing supporting material, and even to the publishing of news about the filing. "Filing of the petitions of present nature, without pleading actual cause and producing material in support of the petition and publishing news even regarding filing of the petitions of present nature essentially are Publicity Interest Litigations and not Public Interest Litigations, which conduct of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced," the bench ruled.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding the matter, the court dismissed the PIL with a finding of "no substance." The order serves as a stern reminder that the PIL jurisdiction is meant for genuine public causes, not for advancing personal or contradictory agendas. The judgment reinforces the principle that litigants must come with clean hands and a clear public interest, lest they face dismissal and censure.