Back
dismisses PIL against Haryana AG's judge elevation, citing personal vendetta
Court slams 'unscrupulous' litigant, orders ₹1 lakh cost for filing driven by personal grudge
The has dismissed a that sought to stall the elevation of Haryana's Advocate General, , as a Judge of the High Court. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor imposed of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner, holding that the petition was a "" filed to settle personal scores rather than serve genuine public interest.
A Pattern of Personal Grievance
The petition, filed by one Pradeep Singh, sought a directing the to keep in abeyance the recommendations of the High Court and Collegiums for Chauhan's appointment, and to not administer the oath of office. This was not Singh's first legal move against Chauhan. The court noted that Singh had earlier filed a PIL seeking against Chauhan's appointment as Advocate General—which was dismissed in .
The court uncovered the real motive behind the litigation: Singh had been an employee of the during the period when Chauhan served as a Judicial Member of the same Commission. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Singh, leading to his discharge from service. “It is, therefore, quite obvious that petitioner has personal grievances against the private respondent No.8,” the bench observed.
Arguments and Objections
Appearing for the Union, , along with for the High Court and for the state, raised strong preliminary objections. They argued that the petition was an “” and an act of vengeance. They placed reliance on the 's guidelines in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), which caution against entertaining PILs at the instance of unscrupulous litigants.
Counsel for the petitioner, , argued that no bar existed for entertaining the PIL, as it raised questions about the fitness of a person for a high constitutional office. He cited the 's observations in on exercise of power, and the judgment in .
Court's Scathing Analysis
The Division Bench rejected these submissions, noting that the appointment process for a High Court Judge is “exhaustive” and involves multiple stages of scrutiny—from the High Court Collegium to the State Government, the Union Law Ministry, and finally the Collegium. “It would not be open to ordinarily question the recommendations made therein, particularly when the challenge is laid by a person who approaches the Court with a ,” the court stated.
Referring to the Balwant Singh Chaufal guidelines, the bench emphasized that courts must verify the credentials of PIL petitioners and ensure that no personal gain or oblique motive underlies the petition. The court noted with disapproval that the petitioner had not filed any other PIL apart from those targeting Chauhan, revealing a clear pattern of personal vendetta.
The court also dismissed the reliance on Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj and Chaudhary Bhajan Lal , stating the judgments had no applicability to the facts. It specifically condemned the manner of citation—relying on headnotes from online portals—as unacceptable.
Key Observations from the Bench
“The process itself is exhaustive, and it would not be open to ordinarily question the recommendations made therein, particularly when the challenge is laid by a person who approaches the Court with a .”
“The PIL petition was supposed to be a 'tool' for the redressal of legitimate grievances of the public at large, and such proceedings cannot be allowed to be invoked for extraneous reasons by unscrupulous persons.”
“Such attempts must be thwarted at very outset.”
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the PIL with costs assessed at ₹1,00,000, to be deposited in the . The court made it clear that successive petitions filed with a personal grudge would not be entertained. The ruling serves as a strong reminder that the PIL mechanism cannot be hijacked for private vendettas, and reinforces the integrity of the —a system designed to ensure thorough vetting of candidates for the high constitutional office of a judge.
