The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, dismissed a Special Appeal against the imposition of ₹75,000 as costs on a petitioner accused of filing a misleading Public Interest Litigation (PIL). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar upheld the earlier judgment by a Single Judge, emphasizing the growing misuse of PILs for personal or vindictive agendas rather than genuine public causes.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around Ashish Kumar, the appellant, who identified himself as the editor of a daily newspaper and a self-proclaimed public interest advocate. He had filed PIL No. 2136 of 2024, seeking the enforcement of an order dated February 18, 2019, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Pilibhit. The order pertained to a piece of land in the district, with Kumar alleging that it had not been enforced despite repeated representations to the authorities.
However, during the proceedings before the Single Judge, it was revealed that the order in question had already been set aside by the High Court on July 14, 2023, in related petitions filed by Umesh Chandra and Baldeo Singh. The petitioner, Ashish Kumar, had failed to disclose this critical fact, leading the Single Judge to conclude that Kumar had approached the court with “unclean hands” and imposed a cost of ₹75,000.
Key Legal Issues
1. Misuse of PIL Mechanism:
The central issue before the court was whether the PIL filed by the appellant was genuine or an abuse of judicial processes. The Division Bench noted that the PIL lacked thorough research and appeared to be filed without verifying the status of the order it sought to enforce.
2. Conduct of the Petitioner:
The court scrutinized the petitioner’s conduct, observing that he had suppressed material facts and misled the court into entertaining a matter that had already been settled.
3. Imposition of Costs:
The legality and justification of imposing ₹75,000 as costs for filing a frivolous PIL were also examined. The court upheld the imposition, stating it was warranted to deter misuse of PILs.
Observations of the Court
While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench made sharp observations regarding the increasing trend of filing frivolous PILs. The court remarked:
“The practice of filing PILs without due research and investigation, often based on incomplete or misleading facts, has assumed alarming proportions. Many such cases are not in the nature of public interest but are driven by private disputes or personal vendettas.”
The bench further emphasized the sanctity of PILs as a tool for redressing genuine public grievances, warning that their misuse could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
Court’s Decision
The court found no fault with the Single Judge’s decision to impose costs on the appellant. It underscored that such measures are necessary to discourage abuse of the PIL mechanism. The court directed that the cost amount be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority, ensuring it would be used for purposes aligned with public interest.
In its concluding remarks, the court stated:
“Judicial time is precious and must be preserved for addressing bona fide issues of public concern, not for resolving personal or fabricated disputes under the guise of public interest.”
Parties and Counsel
– Appellant: Ashish Kumar
Represented by Gyanendra Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Kumar Mishra
– Respondents: Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, and six others
Represented by Sher Bahadur Singh, Ramanand Pandey, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel (A.C.S.C.)
