Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable as it is a private grudge litigation lacking any infringement of fundamental rights and evidentiary basis, and is therefore dismissed.

Summary

The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCL) filed a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 alleging that the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and its activists, including Medha Patkar and Rahul Banerjee, had received foreign funds and supplied arms and explosives to obstruct national dam projects. The petition sought directions to the Union, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and the CBI to investigate these allegations. The respondents contended that the petition was a private grudge litigation lacking any infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights and that the allegations were unsupported by evidence. The Court examined the requirement of a fundamental‑rights violation for a writ under Article 32 and the need for genuine public interest, citing precedents on the limits of PIL. Finding that the petition was motivated by personal animus, contained vague unsubstantiated claims, and did not involve any breach of Articles 14 or 21, the Court held it non‑maintainable and dismissed it with costs.

Issues considered

The writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable as a public‑interest litigation.
Whether the petition alleges a violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner.
Whether the allegations of foreign funding and subversive activities are supported by evidence.
Whether the petition is a genuine public‑interest matter or a private grudge litigation.

Legislation cited

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976s. 14

Subjects

public interest litigationArticle 32fundamental rightsforeign contributionNarmada Bachao Andolangrudge litigationmaintainabilityenvironmental activismrehabilitationdam projects

Judgment

A NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
v. -+
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JULY I 0, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

,..,,._
Public Interest Litigation:
,..

c of-A/legations
Writ petition filed under public interest litigation-Maintainability
against Narmada Bachao Ando/an and its activists-Alleging
acquisition and supply of arms and explosives to obstruct progress ofprojeCts t
of national importance-Directions sought for investigation into routing of
foreign funds towards activities of respondents 4 to 6-lnspection of books
of accounts of organizations concerned revealing no violation of 1976 Act-
D Held: Ordinarily in a case like this, writ petition under Article 32 of
Constitution would be maintainable-However, facts sought to be projected ,).,-
in instant case clearly indicate that writ petition was filed out of grudge
harboured by person representing writ petitioner against the known social
activist-Except vague a/legations regarding receipt of foreign funds by
E respondents and their use for subversive activities, there is no evidence to
support a/legations-It appears to be a private interest litigation to discredit
and diffuse the agitation undertaken by respondent no. 5 for rehabilitation
of displaced persons-Writ petition dismissed-Constitution of India-Article
32-Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976-s.!4.

F The petitioner filed the instant writ petition through its President under
public interest litigation arraying Union of India, State of Gujarat, State of ..,.,
Madhya Pradesh and Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, as
respondents I to 3 and 7 respectively and Smt. Medha Patkar, Narmada Bachao ~
Andolan and another individual as respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
G Averments were made alleging acquisition and supply of arms and explosives
by respondents 4 to 6 and their support groups and naxalite organizations,
with a view to obstructing the progress of the projects of national importance,
It was, inter alia, prayed that directions be issued to respondents 1 to 3 and
7 to investigate into the routing of foreign funds towards the activities of
L
respondents 4 to 6 and its subordinate and supportive organiz.ations. The Court
H 198 •'
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.0.1. 199

was not entirely convinced of the allegations against respondent no. 4 and, A
,.. therefore, issued no notice to her. Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5
+ contended that the writ petition, particularly, in the shape of public interest
litigation, was not maintainable as no fundamental rights of the petitioner
organization were infringed, and the writ petition was filed out of sheer grudge
against respondents 4 to 6. Respondent no. 6, who appeared in person,
submitted that the instant writ petition was the result of the grudge harboured
B
by the President of the petitioner organization against respondent no. 4.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
"'
~
HELD: 1.1. Although, ordinarily, in a case like this a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable, in the facts of
c
this case the writ petition does not call for any interference by this Court.
Public interest litigation may be entertained when an issue of great public
importance is involved, but not to settle private scores.
(Para 33) (210-F, GI

·,
D
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra And Ors., (2005) l
SCC 590=1200416 Supp. SCR 900, relied on.
~

1.2. Furthermore, in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution,
there must be an element of infraction of one or the other fundamental rights
contained in Part III of the Constitution. Although, the writ petitioner has E
attempted to show that the writ petition was filed for the benefit of the people
of the States of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the facts as sought.
to be projected clearly indicate that the writ petition has been filed out of grudge
harboured against respondent no. 4. Except for vague allegations regarding
\
receipt of foreign funds by respondents 4, 5, and 6 and their alleged use for
subversive activities, none of the allegations have any evidentiary value, as F
-Y
they are unsupported by any evidence as such. There is no material on record
to show that foreign funds have, in fact, been received by respondent 5 or that
the same had been misutilized for subversive activities of an anti-national
character. In fact, the writ petition appears to have been filed as a fishing
exercise to try and procure evidence against the said respondents 4, 5 and 6. G
(Para 33) (210-G, HJ

Mis. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khima/a/ Totame and Ors., 11990)
1 sec 520, cited.
J,
. 1.3. Respondent no. 6 has been introduced in the writ petition to malign H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A respondents 4 and S by making allegations of subversive activities against
respondent no.6 and trying to establish a link between respondent no.6 and ..
respondent no. 4 to her discredit. There is no direct evidence of any kind of -+
subversive activity allegedly engaged in by the Narmada Bachao Andolan which
could be said to be anti-national. On the other hand, respondent no.S appears
to be genuinely concerned with rehabilitation oftribals and other habitats of
B the submerged areas in keeping with the decision of this Court that the
rehabilitation programme should be completed before submergence of the
areas which were inhabited by them. The materials in the writ petition consist
only of vague allegations without any proper foundation. No case has therefore ,.l

been made for a direction to the CBI to investigate into the said allegations. >-
c (Para 34 and 36112"11-D, E, F; 212-AI

1.4. Although, the writ petition has been shown to have been filed to
protect the interest of the people of the three States of Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Rajasthan, except the person representing the writ petitioner
association, there is no other individual who has been impleaded as petitioner
D to support such an argument Though, the writ petition is alleged to be in the
;
nature ofa public interest litigation, the same appears to be a 'private interest
litigation' to discredit and diffuse the agitation undertaken by respondent no.S >-
for rehabilitation of the displaced persons from the dam site before
submergence of their habitat. (Para 3511211-F, G, H; 212-AI

E Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., (19851
Supp. 2. SCR 51=(1985) 3 SCC 5-'5; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar& Ors.,
AIR (1991) SC 420=(1991) 1 SCR 5 and Dr.B. Singh v. Union of India &
Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 363, referred to.

F CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition {C) No. 69 of2006.

Amar Dave, Amit Kumar Sharma and E.C. Agrawala for the Petitioners.

R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Mishra, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera,
Sangeeta Singh, Sanjay Parikh, A.N. Singh, Manjula Gupta, Jitin Sahni, Vikas
G Upadhyay, B.S. Banthia, Navin Prakash and Sushma Suri for the Respondents
and Rahul Banerjee Respondent-In-Person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALT AMAS KABIR, J. 1. This writ petition has been tiled by the National
H Council for Civil Liberties through its President, Shri V.K. Saxena, against the
~

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.0.1. [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.) 201
Union of India, State of Gujarat, State of Madhya Pradesh, Smt. Medha Patkar, A.
Nannada Bachao Andolan, Shri Rahul Banerjee and the Director of the Central
+ Bureau of Investigation, inter alia, for enforcement of the petitioner's
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution perpetually
on account of arbitrary inaction of the respondents and for protection of a
better right to live of the inhabitants of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
On the basis of the allegations made in the writ petition, the writ petitioner B
has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) "Issue appropriate writ order of direction directing the respondent
·"'"', Nos. 1,2,3 and 7 to investigate into the routing of foreign funds
into the activities of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of its
subordinate and supportive organizations that have been referred
c
to in this petition and that may be revealed during the course of
such investigation and its utilization for purposes that are found
to be seditious in nature and for purposes that are against national
interest and are directed against smooth implementation of projects
o(" national importance and to report to this Hon 'ble Court within D
! jCh time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to prescribe;

" (b) Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 to place before this Hon'ble Court the status report
on pending prosecutions lodged against the respondent Nos. 4,
5 and 6 and their activists along with that of the support groups . E
and organizations as enumerated in this petition, and this Hon 'ble
Court be pleased to issue such appropriate directions upon receipt
of such status report to ensure expeditious disposal of pending
investigation and/or trials within such time period as may be
found fit and appropriate by this Hon'ble Court;
F
(c) Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent
"f No.3 to place before this Hon'ble Court a specific action taken
report in view of the vigilance report/ Devas police report after
the Mehendikheda firing incident in the State of M.P. and to
issue appropriate directions on. receipt of such status report
Iii further directing such investigation to be conducted by the G
respondent No.7;

(d) Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent No.
7 to undertake detailed investigation into the affairs of the
respondent Nos. 4,5, 6 and their support groups as enumerated
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPQRTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A in this petition and more particularly in respect of the activities
in the nature of source, supply and acquisition of arms, explosives,
detonators, gelatin sticks, bullets and connections with naxal
organizations as well as supply and free usage of arms and
explosives more particularly with a view to thwart the progress
of projects of national importance by terrorizing government
B officials and locals, facts of which have come to be revealed in
the final report submitted by SDO Bagli M.P. to Additional
Sessions Judge, Bagli District: Devas;

(e) Issue appropriate writ order or direction directing the Central and
State Government to evolve a proper mechanism for
c implementation a project of national importance where project
developer be directed to provide all available information to the
people of that particular area regarding cost of project, time
schedule for implementation, why the project is being implemented,
its likely impact on citizens (positive or negative), how the Govt.
D plans to compensate the citizens, who are likely to be displaced ·
or adversely affected and benefits after the implementation etc.
to curb the misinformation spread by vested interest. Such
information should be freely and easily available to all.

(t) Any other direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit."
E 2. The prayers indicate that the writ petitioner is basically concerned
with the alleged acquisition an1: supply of arms, explosives, detonators,
gelatin sticks and bullets by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and their support
groups naxalite organizations. Further allegations have been made with regard
to supply and free usage of arms and explosives with a view to obstructing
F the progress of projects of national importance.

3. On 7th July, 2006, when the Writ Petition was moved, this Court did
not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.4-Smt. Medha
Patkar and respondent No.7-Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.
Presumably the Court was not entirely convinced of the allegations against
G Smt. Medha Patkar and hence no notice was issued to her. Consequently, at
the time of final hearing of the writ petition, no one appeared on her behalf
or on behalf of the CBI while the respondent No.6 Rahul Banerjee, appeared
in person.

4. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 10th May, 2007,
H

I
I
l
; NA TIONALCOUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. U.O.L [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.] 203

Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent A
No.5, raised a preliminal)' objection that the writ petition was not maintainable,
particularly in the shape of a Public Interest Litigation, since no fundamental
right of the petitioner-organization had been infringed from the facts as
disclosed in the writ petition and the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition
out of sheer grudge against the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. She pointed out
that apart from Shri Saxena, the President of the National Council for Civil B
Liberties, nobody else had been impleaded as petitioner to lend support to
the case made out in the writ petition. Ms. Indira Jaising urged that the
petitioner had no locus-standi to maintain the petition.

5. A similar stand was taken on behalf of the Union of India. c
6. After taking note of such objection, we decided to hear the parties
both on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and also on merits.

7. Mr. Amar Dave, learned advocate, appearing in support of the writ
petition, urged that Shri Saxena had no personal axe to grind against the D
respondent Nos. 5 or 6 but he was actuated by national interest to file the
writ petition to prevent the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from obstructing the
construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam over the Narmada River. Mr. Dave
urged that the lives of thousands of people, not only in Gujarat, but also in
Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, had been adversely affected by the activities
of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 aimed at preventing the construction of the E
Dam. It was urged that such ~ction on the part of the respondent Nos. 5 and
·6 and the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in containing such
obstructive acts adversely affected the people of Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh, and amounted to violation of their fundamental rights under
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, thereby giving rise to a cause of action F
for filing the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

8. As far as locus standi was concerned, Mr. Dave pointed out that the
Bombay High Court and subsequently this Court had in the case of Olga
Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., reported in
[1985] 3 sec 545, entertained writ petitiClnS filed by a journalist and two G
pavement dwellers for enforcing the fundamental rights of pavement and slum
dwellers under Articles 21, 37, 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution against their
forcible eviction and the removal of their hutments under the Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888. Mr. Dave pointed out that this Court made it clear that
writ petitions filed by Olga Tellis and two others were maintainable since the
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R. (

---t
A right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood from
which they would be deprived if the slum dwellers were evicted from their
slums and pavement dwellings, which would be unconstitutional.

9. Mr. Dave also referred to the decision of this Court in Mis. Shantistar
Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors., reported in [1990] 1 SCC 520,
B wherein while considering the provisions of Sections 20 & 21 of the Urban t-=
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, this Court also had occasion to ,.... I

consider the width and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution to include the
right to shelter. It was observed that the right to life would take within its
sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment .,
and reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need
c of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view.
t

10. Mr. Dave contended that those people who were deprived of the
benefits of the dam were being denied their rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution and since the petitioner-association was championing their rights,
the writ petition must be held to be maintainable. .l
D
·~

11. Apart from the above, Mr. Dave submitted that the respondent No.5
had, in fact, filed a writ application in respect of the dispute which arose
between the State of Gujarat and its neighbouring states in the matter of use,
distribution and control of the waters of the Inter State Narmada _River,
-E including the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and the same had been duly
entertained by this Court and orders and directions had been passed therein.
There too, the question of maintainability had been raised but the writ petition
had been entertained by this Court upon holding that water is a basic need
for the survival of human-beings and is a part of the right to life and human
rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also -'r
F
observed that while the destruction of trees on forest lands was undoubtedly
harmful, large dams also converted waste land into agricultural land arid made
the area greener. Consequently, large dams can also become instruments in
improving the environment.

G 12. Coming to the merits of the writ petition, Mr. Dave directed the major
portion of his submissions against the respondent No. 6 with reference to
Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath which was alleged to be controlled by him. \-
An attempt has been made to link the Narmada Bachao Andolan with the /-
Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath in order to establish a link between the
respondent No.4, Smt. Medha Patkar, and the respondent No.6, Shri Rahul
H Banerjee. Mr. Dave submitted that large sums by way of foreign funds were
NA TIONALCOUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIESv. U.0.1. [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.] 205
-r being received by the respondent No.5 through its support groups and the A,
same was being misutilized for criminal activities such as procuring and
providing arms and ammunitions to those involved in the naxalite movement.
Mr. Dave submitted that the allegations were of a very serious nature and
required investigation by the CBI since the security of the nation was at
stake. It was pointed out that there were several criminal cases pending
against the respondent No.6 who was a supporter of the respondent No.5 B
"
"""'<
Narmada Bachao Andolan and actively participated in its activities.

't 13. Mr. Dave submitted that not only was the Respondent No. 5 an
unregistered organization but that since the last two decades an organized
campaign had been designed and directed by it under the garb of social
activism to oppose projects of national importance such as the Sardar Sarover
c
Dam in Gujarat and the Maheshwar, Omkareshwar and lndirasagar projects, in
Madhya Pradesh. Mr. Dave submitted that as a public spirited citizen ~r.
Saxena had filed the writ petition for a direction upon C.B.I. to conduct an
investigation into the affairs of the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 on account
.......
of the inaction of the other respondents. D
14. Appearing for the respond~nt No.5, Ms. Indira Jaising, leam~d
senior Advocate, strongly urged that since none of the fundamental rights
of the writ petitioner-association had been adversely affected by the Narmad.a
Bachao Andolan and its activities, the writ petition was not maintainable
I

under Article 32 of the Constitution. Ms. Jaising urged that the writ application E
was the result of a grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena against Smt. Medha Patkar
and in the process he had roped in the respondent No.6 in order to show him
to be an associate of Smt. Medha Patkar.
t-
15. Ms. Jaising referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
F
- respondent No.5 to the writ petition and the annexures thereto. Referring to
annexure R-3 of the counter, she submitted that from the report it was quit~
obvious that Shri V.K. Saxena had a personal grudge against Smt. Medha
Patkar which had motivated him to file the writ petition.

16. Reference was also made to annexure R-4 which was a report of an, G
unprovoked attack on the respondent No.4 and her followers by the members
- -"- of the Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha, Congress and National Council
for Civil Liberties activists led by one Amit Thakkar and Shri V.K. Saxena. The
demonstrators hurled abuse at Smt. Medha Patkar who was requesting them
not to disturb the meeting. When Smt. Mallika Sarabhai tried to intervene, she
too was threatened. H
~
.~
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
·--t
A 17. Ms. Jaising also referred to annexure R-6 to the counter which is a
letter addressed to the trustees of the Jansahyog Trust, Bombay, by both
Baba Amte and Smt. Medha Patkar indicating that the money awards which
had been received by them were to be used for charitable purposes and not
for the activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

B 18. Ms. Indira Jaising submitted that Shri Saxena had a pathological
_)...
hatred for Smt. Medha Patkar and her activities so much so that even Smt.
Mallika Sarabhai was not spared in his relentless crusade against Smt. Medha t
~

Patkar and her friends. L
)

{
19. Ms.Jaising denied that the Narmada Bachao Andolan had received
c any money from the McArthur Foundation, USA, as alleged in the writ ..."-
petition. She submitted that the "Right of Livelihood Award" and "Goldman
Foundation" had been jointly awarded in favour of Narmada Bachao Andolan,
Baba Amte and Smt. Medha Patkar in 1991. This is a prestigious award given
to individuals and organizations which have worked for the cause of
environmental justice. Upon receipt of the said award, a joint detision was /-
D
taken by the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Baba Amte not to accept the
money received through the award but to create a trust in the name of Jan
Sahyog Trust and the entire award money was deposited in favour of the
trust with the condition that the inoney would not be used for any of the
activities of the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Ms. Jaising submitted that poison
E has been spread by Shri Saxena as part of his campaign to denigrate Smt.
Medha Patkar and her activities.

20. Ms. Jaising then submitted that the respondent No.6 -Rahul Banerjee,
had been introduced in the writ petition only in order to show that he was
involved in anti-national activities and that Smt. Medha Patkar and the Narmada
F
Bachao Andolan had used him in their attempts to obstruct the construction
of the dam. In the process, Shri Saxena has also tried to suggest that Smt.
Medha Patkar was involved in anti-national activities and was utilizing foreign
funds received by her in the name of the Narmada Bachao Andolan to arrange
for purchase and supply of guns and ammunitions to anti-national elements
G who were engaged in disrupting the normal life of the citizens of India. The
respondent No'.6 Rahul Banerjee has been made out to be a sympathizer of
the naxalite movement and was using his connection with Smt. Medha Patkar ). -
to attain his objectives.

21. Ms. Jaising submitted that such ridiculous and absurd allegations
H merely demonstrate the extent of the grudge nurtured by Shri Saxena against
~
'•

NATIONALCOUNCILFORCIVIL LIBERTIESv. U.0.1. [ALTAMAS KABIR,J.} 207'

+- Smt. Medha Patkar and his attempts to obstruct the lawful agitation carried A
. on by Smt. Medha Patkar to ensure that the tribals who were being displaced
on account of submergence of the habitats were duly rehabilitated and
compensated for the trauma Clnd shock experienced by them on account of
such submergence.

22. Ms. Jaising forcefully urged that the writ petition was not maintainable B
and the stand taken that the respondent No.5 had violated the petitioner's
...._
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, was without basis
and was liable to be rejected. On· the other hand, it was the right of the
displaced persons which had been affected in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution which was canvassed by the respondent No.5. Ms. Jaising
submitted that neither the State of Madhya Pradesh nor the States of Gujarat
c
and Rajasthan, which were the ultimate beneficiaries of the Sardar Sarovar
Dam, had come forward to question/challenge the activities of Smt. Medha
Patkar and the Narmada Bacaho Andolan. Only Shti Saxena had, in .his
individu&I capacity as President of the National Council for Civil Liberties,
filed the writ application out of a personal grudge. According to Ms. Jaising, D
--\:
the writ petition had not been filed in the public interest and such grudge
litigation had been deprecated and discouraged by this Court.

23. In suppcrt of her submissions, Ms. Jaising firstly referred to the
decision of this Court in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in AIR (1991) SC 420, wherein while considering the maintainability E
of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court observed that
a petition under Article 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at
the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social workers· or ·
--{
journalists. But recourse .to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution
should be .taken by a person genuinely interested in the protection of society F
1'-·
on behalf of the community. Public Interest Litigation cannot be invoked by
a person or body of persons to satisfy his or their personal grudge and
enemity. If such petitions were entertained, it would amount to abuse of the
process of the court.

24. In this regard, reference was also made ti) the decision of this Court G
in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra And Ors., reported in
(2005) I SCC 590, wherein also the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution
__,,
in entertaining 'public interest litigation' had been explained. This Court
.. observ.ed that 'public interest litigatio~s' we~~ to be admitted with great care
and for redressal only of genuine public wr?f!gs or injury ~nd not for the
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A redressal of private, publicity- oriented or political disputes or other disputes . --+
not genuinely concerned with public interest.

. 25. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in the case
of Dr.B. Singh v. Union ofIndia & Ors., reported in [2004] 3 SCC 363 which
had been followed in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware 's case (supra). Several other
B decisi()ns were also referred to by Ms.Jaising in support of her submissions
which are in the same vein as those cited above and will only amount to
multiplication of decisions.

26. Ms. Jaising submitted that this was a case of suggestio falsi et
C suppressio veri (A suggestion of falsehood and suppression of truth) and the
writ petition was therefore liable to be dismissed.

27. The respondent No.6, Shri Rahtd Banerjee, who appeared in person,
d.enied the f:lHegationsin the writ petition whiCh were directed mainly against
him and urged that the same had been made only to persuade the Court into
D passing. an order against Smt. Medha Patkar and. the respondent No.5. He
denied that the society being run by him, namely, the Khedut Mazdoor
· Chetha Sangath was engaged in any kind of unlawful and/or anti-national
activities as alleged in the writ petition or at all. He submitted that he w~s not
connected with the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the case of sedition trnder
Sections 121 and, 121 A of the Indian Penal Code had been quashed by the
E Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 942/2003 by itsjudgment
dated 26th April, 2004. Shri Banerjee submitted that he was an alumnus of the
Indian Iilstitute,of Technology, Kharagpur, and his _association with Khedut
. _ Mazdoor Chetna Sangath was to prevent exploitation of tribals and adivasi.s.
He submitted that in this regard ihe Sangath had filed a writ petition against ·
. F the State o(:Madhya Pradesh alleging harassment by police officers in
registering· ofFIRs;hand cuffing and locking up of tribals in various police
stations _when }hey objected to such exploitation. The matter reached thi~
Couit which, observed thaqhe Magistracy requires to be sensitised to the
,vali.t~s of hµman dignity and to the restraint on power. The Court also
observed that ilie reports Of the CBI to the Judicial Magistrate revealed the
· G . sordid picfol'.e:;~l\d the sorrowful plight of public spirited men whose desire
wa~ to preven.(explohatfon of the poor adivasis. Ultimately,·directions were
given to the CBI to investigate and register cases and prosecute the officers
however high or. low in the hierarchy of the administration for their lapses.
Shri Banerjee submitted that the decision of this Court had peen r~ported in
H "JT 1994 (6) SC 60 .. 1--

•:'·.

I·
NATIONAL COUNCIL FORCIVIL LIBERTIESl'. U.OJ. [ALTAMASKABIR,J.) 209

28. Regarding the allegation of receipt of illegal funds by him and his A
wife Subhadra Khaperde and using the same for inciting anned .rebellions
against the State, the respondent No.6 submitted that the funds had been
received as fellowship grants from various ..bona fide agencies for
. implementation of development projects. All the said funds had been properly
utilized for the purposes for which they had been granted and there were B
· ·supporting vouchers in support of the same which had bee'n duly certified
by Chartered Accountants, copies whereof had been ·marked as annexure
R-9 to the counter filed by the respondent No.6: As to the funds received as . ·
fellowship grants from the McArthur Foundation, USA, the same were solely
used for improving the reproductive health and rights situation -of Bhil adivasi
women and had no connection whatsoever with the work of the respondent c
to
Nos. 4 & 5 nor were they used purchase anns with the intention of staging
an anned rebellion against the State. Shri Banerjee added that the Foundation
is a renowned funding agency having.the permission of the Union Home
Ministry to m.ake such grantS in India. It has funded over a I 00 NGOsin India,
·including the Self-Employed Women's Association (SEWA), set up by the D
Magsaysay awardee and former Rajya Sabha Member, Elaben Bhatt. Shri.
Banerjee submitted that despite repeated investigations into so1,1rces and
utilization of these funds. by the Madhya Pradesh Police, the U~ion Home
Ministry had found nothing untoward regarding the acquisition and utilization
". of such funds. ' . '

29. Shri Banerjee also referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State ·
E
of Gujarat.in which it has been stated that there are no criminal cases pending
in the State of Gujarat against the respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6. ang the one.-
case involving the manhandling of tWo officbts of the·Gujarat Government
. while discharging thei~ duty in villa·ge Barada in Madhya Pradesh was also
compromised and disposed of by the Judicial· Magistrate in March 2003. F
30. Shri Banerjee repeated Ms. Jaising's submission's that the present
litigation was the result of a grudge harboured by Shri Saxena against Smt.
Medha Patkar and an artempt had been made to discredit her by suggesting
that s~e was involved in anti-national activities which were allegedly being
carried out by the respondent No.6 under the banner of Khedut Mazdoor ~ G
Chetna Sangath. ·, ··

31. _Both. the Vnion of India and-the State of Madhya Pradesh had 'tittle
to add and_ they relied on the affidavits' filed on their behalf in the proceedings.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union· of India, it has been H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R.
,•
A generally stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs in its Foreign Contribution
Regulation Act Division had not granted permission to the respondent No.
4 or certain organizations named in the writ petition to receive foreign funds.
However, it has also been categorically stated that an inspection was carried
out in· terms of Section 14 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976
into the books of accounts of among others the Narmada Bachao Andolan,
B Badwani, M~dhya Pradesh in 2002 and the same did not reveal any instance
of violation of the aforesaid Act. A similar enquiry had also been conducted ,.;..
in 2000 and then also no such violation had been detected. The said information
was conveyed to the Chief Minister of Gujarat by the Minister of State,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, by letter dated 26th August,
C 2003. The contents of the said letter has been made annexure R-1/l to the
affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Union of India and reads as 'follows:-

"Kindly refer to your letter No.CMS/GOl/150 dated the 27th September,
2001 addressed to the Hon'ble Dy. P.M. regarding alleged violation of
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 by the functionaries of
D ·Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). .)._

This matter was investigated in some detail under the provision of the
said Act. The accounts/records of the NBA and a number of NGOs
as.sociated with it were inspected but no specific instarice of any
vioJation of FCRA, 1976 was detected."
E
32. In the affidavit affirmed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh,
it has been statbd that the existing laws were sufficient to take care of the
reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner and appropriate .action under the existing
laws had a!Telidy been undertaken.

F 33. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
having consiqered the materials on record, we are of .the view that although
ordinarily in a case like this a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
would be maintainable, in the facts of this case the writ petition does not call
for any interference by this Court. The various decisions cited· by counsel on
G both sides indicate. in what circumstances public interest litigation may be
entertained by the Courts. We share the same views. We are :ilso of the view
that public interest iitigation may be entertained when an issue of great public
importance is involved, but not to settle private scores as was held in )_ ....
/
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware 's case (supr~}. Furthermore, in an application un.der
Article 32 of the Constitution there must be an element of !nfraction of one
H or the other fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution.
NATIONALCOUNCILFORCIVILLIBERTIESv. U.0.1.[ALTAMASKABIR.,J.) 211

Although, the writ petitioner has attempted to show that the writ petition had A
been filed for the benefit of the people of the States of Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Rajasthan, the facts as sought to be projected clearly indicate
that the writ petition has been filed· out of grudge harboured by Shri Saxena
against Smt. Medha Patkar. Except for vague allegations regarding receipt of
foreign funds by the respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and their alleged use for B
subversive activities, none of the allegations have any evidentiary value as
they are unsupported by any evidence as such. There is no material on record
to ·show that foreign funds have, in fact, been received by the respondent
No.5 or that the same had been misutilized for subversive activities of an anti-
'
national character. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that certain
monetary awards had been received jointly by the respondent No.5 and Baba C
Amte which had been vested in a trust which had no connection with the
activities of the respondent No.5. In fact, the writ petition appears to have
been filed as a fishing exercise to try and procure evidence against the said
respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Having seen the annexures to the .counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, we are inclined to accept Ms.
Indira Jaising's submissions that Shri Saxena had a private grudge against &
Smt. Medha Patkar which had motivated him to file the writ petition and not
in the public interest as claimed by him.

34. The respondent No.6 has been introduced in the writ petition to
malign the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by making allegations of subversive E
activities against the respondent No.6 and trying to establish a link between '
the respondent No.6 and Smt. Medha Patkar to her discredit. There is no
direct evidence of any kind of subversive activity allegedly engaged in by the
Nannada Bachao Andolan which could be said to be anti-national. On the
other hand, the respondent No.5 appears to be genuinely concerned with the
rehabilitation of the tribals and the other habitats of the submerged areas in F
keeping with the decision of this Court that the rehabilitation programme
should be completed before submergence of the areas which were inhabited
by them.

35. Although, the writ petition has been shown to have been filed to
protect the interest of the people of the three States of Gujarat, Madhya G
Pradesh and Rajasthan, except for Shri Saxena representing the writ petitioner
association, there is no other individual who has been impleaded as petitioner
to support such an argument. Although, the writ petition is alleged to be in
the nature of a public interest litigation, the same appears to be a 'private
interest litigation' to discredit and diffuse the agitation undertaken by the H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS·· [~007) 8 S.C.R.

A respondent No.5 for rehabilitation of the displaced persons from the dam site
before submergerice of their habitat. ~

36. In our view, the materials in the writ peti~ion consist only of vague
allegations witpout ~my proper foundation. No case has therefore been made
,for a direction to the CBI to investigate into the said allegations.
B
37. Having regard to the view taken by us '"'.e do not int~nd to separately
.deal with the decisions. cited on behalf of the respective parties.

38'. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at-
Rs.5,000/-. /
c
RP.. Writ petition dismissed.

!-