HC dismisses petition on Parrikar’s health

PANAJI: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday dismissed a petition which had sought direction to the Chief Secretary to conduct medical evaluation of Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar by a team of expert doctors and to make medical reports public.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court observed that claiming relief of examination of the Chief Minister by a panel of doctors and to report the outcome to the public is an outrageous overstepping in the territory of privacy of an individual and which would be impermissible in law to grant such request.

The division bench of the High Court comprising Justice R M Borde and Justice P K Chavan observed, “Another striking feature which we may point out is that the petitioner is seeking strictly private and confidential information which is within the realm of privacy of the Chief Minister, without making him a party to the petition. The instant petition, without making the Chief Minister party respondent, is not entertainable and deserves to be dismissed.”

Petitioner Trajano D’Mello, a social activist, had placed reliance on the newspaper reports and certain advertisements released by the government to support his contention that the state of health of the Chief Minister is critical and he is not in a position to perform the obligations of his office.

The High Court observed that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed facts as regards his political affiliation. The facts stated in the petition are based merely on unverified newspaper reports. The allegations made in the petition are merely based on presumptions and those have not been substantiated, though serious allegations are made in respect of functioning of the office of the Chief Minister. There is absolutely no material to substantiate those allegations.

“The petitioner makes imputation of ill-mental health of the Chief Minister. However, while making such serious allegations, absolutely no care has been taken by him to verify whether the allegations are true or false. The constitutional functionary, merely on account of his ill-health is not incapable to occupy the constitutional position which he occupies on account of his proven majority before the House of legislature, and any individual who has rival political interest has to adopt a democratic method to unsettle the political power,” the High Court also said.

Advocate General Dattaprasad Lawande had contended before the court that the petitioner has a political agenda and his political affiliations have not been disclosed in the petition

Besides, it was contended that the Chief Minister has a right to privacy as an individual and the state being the protector of the rights of a citizen, is entitled to claim availability of such a right.

The High Court in its order also observed that the petitioner, by making unsubstantiated allegations, seeks intervention of the  HC  to make a deep inroad into the right of privacy of the Chief  Minister who also holds individual right of privacy as a citizen of this country. Claiming relief of examination of the Chief Minister by a panel of doctors and to report the outcome to the public is an outrageous overstepping in the territory of privacy of an individual and which would be impermissible in law to grant such request. There is no legislation in place which can form foundation of the claim raised in the petition.

The division bench also said that in the absence of any law, the relief as claimed by the petitioner in the petition is not capable of being granted. The halfhearted attempt of presenting the petition to make serious inroads in the territory of privacy of an individual is not at all appreciable. The litigation initiated under the garb of public interest litigation shall have to be categorised, as has been branded by the Supreme Court, either as a ‘publicity interest litigation’ or a ‘private interest litigation’ or a ‘political interest litigation’.