‘PIL now being abused by publicity mongers’: Delhi HC dismisses plea against appointment of CJI Chandrachud

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on November 11 said, “What is recognised in a court of law is a ’cause of action’ and not an action without a cause. It is a classic case of an action without a cause, full of surmises, conjectures, and wishful thinking”.

Ruling that the plea is “wishful thinking” by the litigant, the HC said although it is not a prohibited activity, but when it forms part of the grounds of a petition before the court, it “amounts to an abuse of the process of the court”. The HC, thereafter, opined such an attempt must be repelled in a manner sending a “tenacious message”.

“The message must be clear that the offices held by the constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration, that too in a court of law, by self-styled warriors of public interest on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact,” the HC held.

The HC imposed an “exemplary cost” of Rs. 1 lakh on the litigant and directed him to deposit it with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within 30 days of the order. The bench further directed that in case the cost is not recovered within 30 days the concerned sub-divisional magistrate will recover the same as arrears of land revenue and deposit it with the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund and inform the Registrar General of the high court.

The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, who appeared in person had said that Articles 124A, 124(2), and 124(3) of the Constitution should be followed in the matter of appointment to the office of the Chief Justice of India. He also prayed for interim relief restraining the Chief Justice of India designate (at the relevant point of time) to take the oath which was scheduled on November 9.

The plea further stated an inquiry should be conducted by security agencies against CJI Chandrachud to find out if he has any “kind of relation with anti-nationals and Naxalite Christian terrorists”. Tiwari further prayed that Article 124 of the Constitution should be followed in the “appointment of the newly appointed Chief Justice and the appointment of the newly appointed Chief Justice, Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud, being done in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, should be stopped with immediate effect”.

Ruling that the plea was moved to garner publicity the HC remarked, “It is unfortunate that allegations have been made against other high dignitaries, including the Union Law Minister. The instant Petition appears to be more of a publicity oriented litigation instead of a public interest litigation”. The HC held the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution on the appointment of the Chief Justice of India had been followed.

On the concept of PILs, the High Court took the view that the concept entails that a “citizen could approach the Courts to ventilate the grievances of the oppressed and marginalised persons who are otherwise unable to pursue their rights owing to poverty, ignorance. and illiteracy. Any member of the public can file a PIL…It is now being increasingly noticed that Public Interest Litigation is being abused by Publicity mongers who institute Public Interest Litigation only to gain cheap popularity. Many times the petitions are filed even as a tool to blackmail people”.

The high court held that the litigant had not shown how constitutional provisions were violated holding that the plea was a fit case to be “crushed at the threshold in the strongest terms”.

Dismissing the petition as nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the HC observed, “The prayers urged in this petition are not only against the genesis of a social interest litigation, but also a revolt against the dignity of the constitutional office. Notably, the cause espoused in this petition has already received the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has been dismissed for lack of merits vide order dated 02.11.2022 in W.P.(C) Diary No. 34617/2022”.

“The Petitioner chose to come before this Court, after camouflaging the same issue as a fresh cause, which reflects on his oblique motive and highlights the questionable credentials of the Petitioner. The noble intentions that liberalised the rule of locus stand and permitted public-spirited citizens to approach the constitutional courts, for the vindication of the rights of those who find themselves incapable to do so, are confronted with a sad reality in litigations like the present one. As noted by the Apex Court, it has now become a fashion to approach the Court by making scandalous allegations against the Judges,” it added.