Back
Supreme Court Fires Warning Shots at Frivolous PILs: " " Petitions by Lawyer Tossed Out
In a swift takedown on , a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi at the dismissed five writ petitions filed under by advocate . Labeling them as exemplars of " ," the court granted the petitioner permission to argue in person but wasted no time in rejecting the pleas for their lack of merit, poor drafting, and vagueness. These included targeting the , with one notably seeking a policy framework for declaring classical languages and dialects.
From Classical Languages to Court Clog: The Petitions Unraveled
The petitions—numbered Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 116/2026, 115/2026, Diary Nos. 53585/2025, 53368/2025, and 53583/2025—were heard together in the PIL-W section. Gupta, appearing , urged the court to intervene on issues like criteria for classical language status, but the bench found no substantial questions of law meriting consideration.
One petition specifically prayed for directions to frame a policy on classical languages and "classical dialects," but the court deemed it "
." Others were criticized as
"
"
or suffering from "
." Filed amid delays that were condoned, these cases traced back to late 2025 diary entries, highlighting a pattern of hastily prepared challenges directly invoking the Constitution's
enforcement mechanism.
Petitioner's Plea Meets Silence from Respondents
As the petitioner argued in person, no counsel appeared for the respondents (
and others). Gupta's submissions apparently failed to demonstrate any enforceable right or public interest, with the court noting the petitions' "
" right from the drafting stage. Reports suggest the bench quipped,
"Do you draft these at midnight?"
—a pointed remark underscoring the perceived sloppiness, though the orders focused on substantive flaws like baselessness and evasion.
Court's Razor-Sharp Critique: No Room for Laxity in
The bench applied no new precedents but drew on the inherent duty of the Supreme Court to guard against abuse of
, which empowers direct access for
violations. Distinguishing genuine PILs from frivolous ones, the judges emphasized that
isn't for
"burdening this Court with
."
They refrained from imposing costs—considering Gupta's status as an advocate—but issued a clear deterrent.
Key Observations
"This petition is another example of a in drafting the writ petition under of the and burdening this Court with ." (WP 116/2026)
"This writ petition is yet another example of on the part of the petitioner while drafting the same and is wholly frivolous." (WP 115/2026)
"The instant petition is . Moreover, it is abundantly evident that the same is drafted very poorly apart from also being vague ." (Diary No. 53585/2025)
"We... issue a to the petitioner-Advocate to refrain from filing/pursuing any such petitions in the future ." (Diary No. 53585/2025)
These remarks reinforce the judiciary's intolerance for petitions that evade clarity or substance, potentially signaling stricter scrutiny on self-represented advocates.
Dismissed with a Caution: Ripple Effects for Future Filers
Each petition met the same fate:
"The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed,"
with all interlocutory applications (like delay condonations and in-person permissions) disposed of. The court advised Gupta to approach "the competent Authority" if so inclined, redirecting policy matters away from constitutional courts.
This episode underscores the Supreme Court's resolve to streamline its docket, discouraging casual invocations of . For lawyers doubling as petitioners, it's a stark reminder: sloppy drafting risks not just dismissal, but reputational damage. Future PILs may face higher bars, preserving judicial bandwidth for meritorious claims amid rising caseloads.
