DR. B. SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                  DR. B. SINGH                                              A
                                        v.
                            UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   MARCH 11, 2004

               [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]                                    B


          Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 32 and 217:

-          4ppointment of Judge challenged on the basis of allegations made by
    someone else against the candidate-Held: Contents of the affidavit have                 C
    been verified as true and correct without disclosing its source-All possible
    care and caution being exercised in the appointment of Judges-Since no
    effort has been made by petitioner to find the truth in the allegations, credibility/
    authenticity in doubt-Petition appears to have been filed for self-publicity
    and at the expense of decency and dignity of Constitutional offices and                 D
    functionaries without any sense of responsibility, unmindful of the adverse
     impact, lacking public interest-No material adduced to infer that petitioner
     was really interested in the welfare of the judicial system-The Court must
     not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration by persons with
    vested interest-The petition, if entertained, would cause immense damage to
    the system-Hence, dismissed with exemplary costs with the hope that the                 E
    petitioner would not file such vexatious petition in future.

          Public Interest Litigation-Meaning and scope of-Discussed.

          Petitioner has challenged the appointment of Respondent No.3 as
    Judge on the basis of information in the Newspaper clippings/                           F
    representations filed by someone else. In the representations, allegations
    were made against the Judge. Nowhere in the petition the petitioner has
    disclosed whether he was having any personal knowledge of the allegations
    nor any effort was made by him to find out the truth in the allegations.

             Dismissing the petition, the Court                                             G

          HELD: 1.1. The contents of the affidavit were stated to be true and
    correct to the knowledge of the petitioner and based on records. However,
    the source of his knowledge and the records was not indicated. Even the
                                           1061                                             H
    1062                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A copy of the order passed by the High Court on allegedly identical issues,
    has not been annexed. The casual and cavalier fashion it appears to have
    been handled and of late attempted to be made ipse dixit in a laconic and
                                                                                          --
    lackadaisical manner compels to draw the only inference that the
    petitioner was a busy body bent upon self publicity sans any sense of
B   responsibility unmindful of the adverse impact, at times it may go to create
    at the expense of decency and dignity of constitutional offices and
    functionaries and there is no element or even trace of public interest
    involved in the petition. [1066-C-EJ

          1.2. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public
C   interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes
    or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or gain publicity
    or a facade for blackmail, the petition has to be thrown out.


           1.3. Public Interest Litigation, if not properly and strictly regulated
D .at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted it becomes a
    tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as
    well to malign not only an incumbent to be in office but demoralize and
                                                                                                  I

    deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept               I
                                                                                              I




                                                                                      I
    highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being brought into
E   disrepute with baseless allegations. There must be real and genuine public
    interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for .
    maintaining a cause before court and not merely an adventure of knight            "---
    errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person
    or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his
    or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be
F   allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the
    extraordinary jurisdiction. The credibility of such. Claims or litigations
    should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials, averred and
    not even on the credentials claimed of the person moving the Courts in
    such cases. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
    proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and
G   can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and
    genuine infraction of statutory provisions. (1066-G-H; 1067-A-CJ

      . Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 305; Kazi
    Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 116;
    Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR (1993) SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas
H
                                  B. SINGH v. U.0.1.                         1063

--   v. P.M Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620, relied on.                                  A
          Judicial Dictionary by Strouds (Fourth Edition) and Black's Law
     Dictionary (Sixth Edition), referred to.

            1.4. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
     great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely             B
     careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
     private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It
     is t_o be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering
     social justice to the citizens. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine

-    public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or·founded on
     personal vendetta. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for
     oblique considerations by masked phantoms who moniter at times from
                                                                                     C


     behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
     meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper
     motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves.
     Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity.       D
     The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection
     at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
                                                           [1069-F-H; 1070-A-B]

           State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, [1994) 2 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh
     State Financial Corporation v. Mis. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR          E

--   (1994) SC 2151 and Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT
     265, referred to.

          "Report .on Public Interest Law" by Council for Public Interest Law,
     USA, I976, referred to.
                                                                                     F
--         1.5. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been
     indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real
     intentions and objectives, Courts at times are entertaining such petitions
     and wasting valuable judicial time which could be otherwise utilized for
     disposal of genuine cases. [1071-D]
                                                                                     G
           Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR
     (1999) SC 114; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (1981) Supp. SCC
     87; State of H.P. v. A Parent ofa Student of Medical College, Simla and Ors.,
     [1985] 3 SCC 169; Sachidanand Pandey v. State ofW.B., [1987) 2 SCC 295
     and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal, (2003) 8 Supreme            H
    1064                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A 299; referred to.
           2. It is not the ipse dixit of any individual to say as to whether the
    recommended person is fit for appointment by making wild allegations
    which has become common these days and have resulted in delaying .
    appointment of Judges, though large number of vacancies exist in different
B   High Courts. All possible care and caution are being exercised before
    appointment of a Judge is made. It is true that no system is infallible,
    but at the same time the sinister design of people intended to thwart
    prospects of a person likely to be appointed as a Judge has to be nipped
    at the bud. The petitioner has not shown any material to show that he is
C   really interested in the welfare of the judicial system or the institution of
    the judiciary. He appears to be a busy person seeking publicity and a
    person who has no genuine concern for the institution; if such type of
    petitions are permitted to be entertained it would cause immense damage
    to the system itself. High sounding words used in the petition about the
    desirability of a transparent judicial system cannot turn a mis-conceived /

D   petitiOn field with oblique motives to be treated as a public interest
    litigation. Hoping that the petitioner would mend his ways and would not
    hazard such vexatious litigations in future, the petition is dismissed with
    exemplary costs. [1073-G-H; 1074-A-B]

         Special Reference No. I of 1998 Re: [19~8] 7 SCC 739; Supreme Court
E   Advocates-on-Record Association and Ors. v. Union of India, [1993] 4 SCC
    441 and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (1981) Supp. SCC 87, relied
    on.                                                                                 -
         CIVIL ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                        Writ Petition
F   (C) No. 122 of 2004.

           (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

           Petitioner-in-Person

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
          ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. This petition filed purportedly under Article 32
    of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') shows to what
    extent the process of law can be abused. It carries the attractive brand name
    of "public interest litigation", but the least that can be said is that it smacks
H   of everything what a public interest litigation should not be.
                           B. SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASA YAT. J.]                    1065

           The petition is purported to have been filed questioning the propriety        A
    of respondent No.3 being considered for appointment as a Judge. Subsequently,
    an application was filed for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty
    to file a fresh petition as in the meantime respondent No.3 has been appointed
    as a Judge.

         Before we go into the desirability of even entertaining such a petition,        B
-   background in which the petition has been tiled needs to be noticed.

           According to the petitioner, as reflected in the petition, basis of the



-
    petition is a copy of the representation purported to have been received from
    one Ram Sarup which was addressed to the President of India with copies to
    the Chief Justice of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Chief Justice of            C
    Punjab and Haryana High Court, Governor of Haryana and Bar Council of
     India wherein allegations were made against respondent No.3. Only on the
    basis of what is stated therein of which apparently the petitioner himself
    cannot legitimately claim to have any personal knowledge the petitioner filed
    a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was dismissed.        D
    The petitioner makes a grievance that aforesaid Ram Sarup had received
    acknowledgement of the representation addressed to the President of India
    wherein it was also noted that the same had been forwarded to the Secretary
    to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs
    (Department of Legal Affairs) for appropriate action. But no action was taken
    to look into the allegations. It is not clear from the writ petition as to whether   E
    the petitioner had sent any representation to the President and other
    constitutional functionaries as the enclosures to the writ petition show that
    aforesaid Ram Sarup had sent representations to the President with copies to
    the other functionaries. The copy of the representation dated 18.10.2003
    shows that it was sertt by Ram Sarup. The second representation is dated             F
    13.12.2003 in which reference has been made to a representation purported
    to be dated 28.11.2003. In the representation dated 13 .12.2003 reference is
    niade to the acknowledgement dated 12.11.2003. This creates an impression
    that the acknowledgment dated 12.11.2003, of the President's Secretariat
    relates to the representations sent by Ram Sarup. But the copy of purported
    acknowledgement filed as Annexure P-2 shows as if it was sent by the                 G
    petitioner. No copy of any representation dated 28. l 0.2003 as indicated in
    Annexure P-2 has been filed along with the petition. The petitioner nowhere
    has stated that he has any personal knowledge of the allegations made against
    respondent No.3. He does not even aver that he made any effort to find out
    whether the allegations have any basis. He only refers to the representation         H
    1066                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2004) 2 S.C.R.

A of Ram Sarup and some paper cuttings of news items. He has not indicated
    as to .whether he was aware of the authenticity or otherwise of the news
                                                                                           -
    items. It is too much to attribute authenticity or credibility to any information
    or fact merely because, it found publication in a newspaper or journal or
    Magazine or any other form of communication, as though it is gospel truth.
    It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally
B   acceptable evidence. Strangely, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition
    he has stated as follows:

               "That I have read over the contents of accompanying writ petition
                                                                                           --
            page No. l to 13 para, Para No. I to 18, synopsis and list of dates~
            page A to C and I say that the same are true and correct on knowledge
c           and based on the record of the case".

    The affidavit shows that the contents were true and correct to his knowledge
    and based on records. Strangely, it has not been indicated as to what is the
    source of his knowledge and are based on what records. Even the copy of the
D   order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court where he filed writ
    application on allegedly identical issues, as indicated in the petition, has not
    been annexed. The casual and cavalier fashion it appears to have been handled
    and of late attempted to be made ipse dixit, in a laconic and lackadaisical
    manner compels to draw the only inference that the petitioner is a busy body
    bent upon self publicity sans any sense of responsibility unmindful of the
E   adverse impact, at times it may go to create at the expense of decency and
    dignity of constitutional offices and functionaries and there is no element or
    even trace of public interest involved in the petition.                                --
           When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest
    litigation is nothing but· a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendatta
F   to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or gain publicity or a facade
    for blackmail, said petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the
    issues involved in the present.case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue
    regarding the "public interest" aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has
    now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should
G   not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics
    interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly
    and strictly regulated at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse
    averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and
    wreck vengeance, as well to malign not only an incumbent to be in office but
    demoralise and deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing
H   to accept highly sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being brought
                            B. SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASA YAT. J.]                   1067
-      into disrepute with baseless allegations. There must be real and genuine A
     'public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for
      maintaining a cause before court and not merely an adventure of knight
       errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person
      or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or
      their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to B
      be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary
      jurisdiction. The credibility of such claims or litigaticns should be adjudged
      on the creditworthiness of the materials, averred and not even on the credentials
      claimed of the person moving the courts in such cases. A person acting bona


--    fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation
      will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation C
      of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not
      for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
      consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v.
      H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., [1992] 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v.
      Central Bureau of Investigation, [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 116. A writ p~titioner D
      who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with
      clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean
      mind and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, AIR


-     (1993) SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620.

            It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest
     litigation'. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public
                                                                                         E
     Interest' is defined thus:

             "Public Interest (I) a matter of public or general interest does not
             mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of
             information or amusement but that in which a class of the community         F
             have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights
             or liabilities are affected."

           In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined
     as follows :

             "Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by
                                                                                         G
             which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean
             anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters
             in question. Interest shared by national government...."

           In Janata Dal's case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public        H
    1068                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is
    public interest, has laid down as follows :
                                                                                          -·
            "The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all
            proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of
            right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL"
B

                                                                                          -
            means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement
            of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of
                                                                                               .
            the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which
            their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

           In para 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: .
c
            "Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of
            locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory, because the legal
            capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public
            action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
            ascertained at the threshold."
D
          In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as
    follows:

            "While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all
            emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of
E           this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound
            a red alert and a note of severe warning that Courts should not allow
            its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a meddlesome
            interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or
            concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique
F           consideration."

           In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:

            "It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient
            interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and
            can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy,
G           suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person
            for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
            consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL,
            brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance,
            deserves rejection at the threshold".
H
                          B. SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASAYAT, J.]                  1069

-          It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings A
    initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise
    could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants.
    Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept
    of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
    oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated B
    and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-representeu an1! unheard; yet we cannot
    avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate
    grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of
    millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons
    sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced
    to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering C
    from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting
    the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or
    unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their
    release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine
    queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their
    grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or D
    officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for
    personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or
    for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue
    muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get
    into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants E
    who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally
    waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue
    standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation
    creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants.

          Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great F

-   care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
    that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested
    interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective
    weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The
    attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be G
    used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of
    genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded
    on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful' to see that
    a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting
    bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation
    or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be H
    1070                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times
    from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
                                                                                        -
    meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper
    motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often
    they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions
B   of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold,
    and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

         The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in
    USA defined the "public interest litigation" in its report of Public Interest
    Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
c           "Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to
            efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups
            and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition
            that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such
            services to significant segments of the population and to significant
D           interests. Such groups and interests include the proper
            environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others."

          The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant;
    (b) the primafacie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the
    information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show
E   gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two


                                                                                        -
    conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and
    reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
    public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
    oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the
F   Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that
    under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon
    the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.
    The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies
    or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They
                                                                                        -
    masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro
G   Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own
    to protect.

         Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law
    from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering
    where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is
H   against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v.
                           B. SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASA YAT, .I.]                  1071

     Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation,          A
     v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR (1994) SC 2151. No litigant has
     a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to
     get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
     should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
     (See Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT 265). Today                B
     people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of
     public interest. Self styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst
     of public at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy
     and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual


-    public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of court proceedings.
     They must really inspire confidence in Courts and among the public, failing
     which such litigation should ~e axed with heavy hand and dire consequences.
                                                                                        C

            As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which
     though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is
     shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called
     public interest litigations, whereas only a minuscule percentage can legitimately D
     be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest
     litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet
     unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts at times are entertaining
     such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,
     could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. E
     Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR (1999)
--   SC 114, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained,
     the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in
     the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do
     is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. This tendency is being
     slowly permitted to percolate for setting in motion criminal law jurisdiction, F
     often unjustifiably just for gaining publicity and giving adverse publicity to
     their opponents. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official
     documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner
     came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer
     was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the
     road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of G
     the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such
     copters, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find
     out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are
     taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the
     petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as itprimafacie gives impression H•
    1072                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004] 2 S.C.R.
                                                                                         ---....._
A about oblique motives involved, and in most cases show proxy litigation.
    Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it
    becomes imperative for the Court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose
    of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the
    Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as
B   afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed
    with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts,

          In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., (1981] Supp SCC 87 it was
    emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the
    field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper
C   to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. The following
    note of caution was given: (SCC p.219, para 24)

            "But we must be careful to see that the member of the pu.blic, who
            approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not
            for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other
D           oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be
            abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative
            action or to gain a political objective."

          In State of HP. v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and
    Ors., (1985] 3 SCC 169, it has been said that public interest litigation is a
E   weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection.

         Khalid, J. in his separate supplementing judgment in Sachidanand
    Pandey v. State of W.B., (1987] 2 SCC 295, 331 said:

            "Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion
F           under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts
            and among the public.· They must be above suspicion. (SCC p. 331,
            para 46)

                                             ***
G                Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to
            think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such .cases are
            now filed withou~ any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to
            lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for
            entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow
            of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional
H           litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing
                            B. SINGH v. U.0.1. [PASA Y AT, J.]                1073

             justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive   A
             functions. (SCC p.334, para 59)

                                              ***
                 I will be second to none in extending help when such help is
             required. But this does not mean that the doors of this Court are         B
             always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self-
             imposed restraint on public interest litigants." (SCC p.335, para 61)

             These aspects have been highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The


-
      State of West Bengal, (2003) 8 Supreme 299.

             Procedure for appointment of a Judge is provided in Article 217 of the
                                                                                       c
      Constitution. The process is an elaborate one and involves the views of the
      collegium of the Court. Where a particular person is to be appointed as a
      Judge, the modalities and procedures to be adopted have been elaborately
      dealt with in Special Ref~rence No.I of 1998, Re: [1998] 7 SCC 739. The
      scope of judicial review has been specifically delienated, limiting it to want D
      of consultation with the named constitutional functionaries or lack or any
      condition of eligibility and not on any other ground including that of bias
      which is in· any case is excluded by the element of plurality in the process
      of decision-making. The view in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
      Association aiid Ors. v. Union of India, [ 1993] 4 SCC 441 (popularly known E
      as Second Judges' case) was reiterated. It would be proper to take note of

---   very significant observations made in the Second Judges' case about the
      growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the
      functioning of the judiciary under the garb of public interest litigation, in
      spite of the caution in S.P. Gupta's case (supra). The note of caution has
      yielded no fruitful result and on the contrary these busybodies continue to F
      make reckless allegations and vitriolic statements against Judges and persons
      whose names are under consideration for judgeship. Therefore, it has become
      imperative to take stern actions against these persons. It is not the ipse dixit
      of any individual to say as to whether the recommended person is fit for
      appointment, by making wild allegations which has become common these
      days and have resulted in delaying appointment of Judges, though large G
      number of vacancies exist in different High Courts. All possible care and
      caution is exercised before appointment of a Judge is made. It is true that no
      system is infallible; but at the same time the sinister design of people intended
      to thwart prospects of a person likely to be appointed as a Judge has to be
      nipped at the bud. The petitioner has not shown any material to show that he H
    1074                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A   is really interested in the welfare of the judicial system or the institution of
    the judiciary. As indicated above, he appears to be a busy person seeking
                                                                                       -
    publicity and a person who has no genuine concern for the institution, if such
    type of petitions are permitted to be entertained it will cause immense damage
    to the system itself. High sounding words used in the petition about the
    desirability of a transparent judicial system cannot in our view tum a mis-
B   conceived petition filed with oblique motives to be treated as a public interest
    litigation. This petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs and
    we direct so. The petition though deserves to be dismissed with costs of
    Rs.50,000 hoping that the petitioner would mend his ways and would not
    hazard such vexatious litigations in future dismiss the same with costs of
C   Rs.10,000 which the petitioner shall deposit in the Registry of this Court
    within 6 weeks from today. If deposit is made it shall be remitted to the
    Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. In case the cost is not deposited
    within the time stipulated, the Registry shall forward this order to the Punjab
    and Haryana High Court and the High Court shall have it recovered by
    coercive means of recovery and remit the same to this Court, which on
D   receipt shall be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Seryices Authority.

    S.K.S.                                                     Petition dismissed.




                                                                                       -