NEETUversusSTTE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                       NEETU                                           A
  i
                                         v.
                             STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                    JANUARY 8, 2007

                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                          B
             Public Interest Litigation:
,,-;          Writ petition before High Court-Filed by an unsuccessful candidate
        as public interest litigation-Challenging appointment of a candidate
        stated to have been made on basis of a false Scheduled Caste certificate-      c
        Proceeding to cancel said certificate stated to be already under progress-
        Held, when a particular person is object and target of a petition styled as
        PIL, Court has to be careful to see whether in the guise of public interest
        is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some
        other mala fide object-Factors to be taken into consideration by Courts        D
        while entertaining a writ petition under PIL reiterated-PIL is service
-..,    matters-Locus standi of petitioner-PIL-Copies of public documents
  ...   annexed in such matters-Frivolous pleas to explain possession thereof to
        be dealt with seriously-Constitution of India-Article 226.

              Respondent no. 7, an unsuccessful candidate, filed a writ petition as    E
        a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court challenging the
        appointment of the appellant as Audit Inspector, Co-operative Societies, on
        the ground that she got the appointment on the basis of a Scheduled Caste
        certificate though she did not belong to Scheduled Caste but was married
        to a member of Scheduled Caste. The authorities concerned filed a reply        F
        stating that proceedings to cancel the said Scheduled Caste certificate were
        under progress and, therefore, the writ petition was pre-mature. The High
        Court set aside the appointment of the appellant.

             It was contended for the appellant that in service matters PIL was not
        maintainable and the writ petition was filed because of personal animosity     G
        and cannot be considered to be a public interest litigation.

             Allowing the appeal, the Court

             HELD: 1.1. With regard to the scope of entertaining a petition styled
                                                                                       H
                                            223
    224                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007) 1 S.C.R.

A   as a public interest litigation and to see, locus standi of the petitioner
    particularly in matters involving service of an employee, as has been            -t
    emphasized by this court in various cases, 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 gravity and seriousness
B   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 Court cannot afford
C   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 and
    must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations.
D
                                       [Paras 5 and 10] [226-F-H, 227-A, 229-C]

         State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh
    State Financial Corporation v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR
    (1994) SC 2151; and Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran, (1996) 7 JT
E   265, relied on.

          1.2. The other aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being
    annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess
    them. Whenever frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court
F   should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary
    costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out' the frivolous
    petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right
    direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of
    the Courts. [Para 7] (227-G-H, 228-A-B]

G         Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, relied on.

         Report of Public Interest Law, USA 1976 by 'Council for Public
    Interest Law', referred to.

H         1.3. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition
                                     NEETUv. STATE[PASAYAT,J.]                           225

                styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the     A
         i      guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta,
... '
                personal grouse or some other ma/a fide object. Therefore, in the
                instant case, the writ petition itself was not maintainable, and to that
                extent the High Court's order cannot be maintained. Though PIL is not
                to be entertained in service matters, that does not stand on the way of
                the officials from examining the question in the right perspective. In
                                                                                                B
                the present case admittedly the officials have initiated action. What
                action will be taken in such proceedings is not the subject matter of
         .
        ,;.     controversy in the present appeal. However, it shall not be construed as if
                this court has expressed any opinion on the merits of the proceedings
                stated to be pending. [Paras 12 and 13) (229-H, 230-A-C]                        c
                    Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors.,
                AIR (1999) SC 114, relied on.

                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 95 of2007
                                                                                                D
                     From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.5.2004 of the High Court
        )
            .   of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 14050/2003 .

                     V.C. Mahajan, Sarwa Mitter, Amit Gupta, Adv. (for Mis. Mitter &
                Mitter Co.) for the Appellant.                                                  E

                     Dinesh Verma, O.P. Kamboj, A.P. Mohanty, H.S. Munjral, Arun K.
                Sinha for the Respondent.

                     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                                F
                     DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

                      2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
                of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the
                respondent No. 7 Daljit Singh, purportedly in public interest as a Public       G
                Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL'). Respondents 1 to 6 were official
                respondents in the writ petition. Grievance in the writ petition was that the
                appellant had got appointment as Audit Inspector, Co-operative Societies
                Ferozepur on the basis of Schedule Caste certificate though she was not
                member of any Scheduled Caste. It was averred that the appellant was            H
    226                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A   married to Shri Jagminder Singh, member of the Scheduled Caste and it was
    on that basis aforesaid certificate had been obtained. It was stated that in
    spite of several complaints made to the authorities, no effective action was
    taken. The official respondents filed a reply to the effect that proceedings
    to cancel the scheduled caste certificate were under progress and, therefore,
    the writ petition was premature. The appellant filed a written statement
B   stating that on account of her marriage with Jagmirider Singh, she was to
    be considered as a member of the scheduled caste. It was pointed out that
    the writ petitioner was not qualified and only because of personal vendetta
    he had filed the writ petition styled as a PIL. The High Court by the
    impugned judgment issued a writ in the nature of qua warranto setting aside
c   the appointment of the appellant.

          3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
    that in service matters, PIL is not maintainable. The writ petition was filed
    because of personal animosity and can by no stretch of imagination be
D   considered to be a public interest litigation.

          4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7, on the other hand
    submitted that since the appellant was not entitled to a certificate to the      .
                                                                                     ;r

    effect that she belonged to any scheduled caste the authorities were bound
    to take action on his grievances.
E
           5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest
    litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving
    service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases.
    The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b)
F   the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the
    information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show
    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
G   of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
    oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the
    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
H
                     NEETUv. STATE[PASAYAT,J.]                            '227

bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.       A
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name
of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of
their own to protect.

      6. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law
from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering
                                                                                  B
where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is
against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra v.
Prabhu, [1994] 2 SCC 481, and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation
v. Mis GAR Re-Rolling Mills andAnr., AIR [1994] SC 2151). No litigant has
a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to       c
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, (I 996) 7 JT 265).
Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive
name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among         D
the public.

      7. 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 where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately
                                                                                  E
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, High Courts are
entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as
noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.           F
Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and
Ors., AIR (l 999) SC l l 4, 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            G
decision. 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 the
                                                                                  H
    228                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] I S.C.R

A   official documents. 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. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter
    out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as 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.
B
          8. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
    State ofWB., [2004] 3 SCC 349.

           9. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings
C   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
D   infringed and violated and whose grievance· go unnoticed, un-represented
    and uriheard; 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
E    incarceration for long years, persons suffering 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 Jong serpentine queue for years with the
F   fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed,
    the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners
    having absolutely no real public interest e?'cept 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 bre~k the queue muffing their faces by
G   wearing the mask of public interest Jitigatfon and get into the Courts by filing
    vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants 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.
H
                      NEETU v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]                          229

      10. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with         A
great 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 used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be
                                                                                   B
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           c
must not allow its process to be 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
                                                                                   D
to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies
deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate
cases with exemplary costs.

     11. 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   E
Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

         "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            F
         recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to
         provide such services to significant segments of the population
         and to significant interests. Such groupslnd interests include the
         proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities
         and others." (See : Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Others,
         [2004] 3 sec 363).                                                        G

      12. When a particular person is the object and target of a petition
                                                   "
styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see ~~ether the attack in the
guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta,
personal grouse or some other ma/a fide object.                                    H
    230                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] l S.C.R.

A         13. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant,
    writ petition itself was not maintainable, to that extent the High Court's order
    cannot be maintained. But it· appears that the official respondents have
    already initiated action as regards the caste certificate. Though PIL is not
    to be entertained in service matt.ers, that does not stand on the way of the
    officials from examining the question in the right perspective. In the present
B   case admittedly the officials have initiated action. What action will be taken
    in such proceedings is not the subject matter of controversy in the present
    appeal. However, it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any
    opinion on the merits of the proceedings stated to be pending. The only
    issue which has been examined relates to the locus standi of the writ
C   petitioner (respondent No. 7) to file PIL.

         14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent but without any order
    as to costs.

    R.P.                                                          Appeal allowed.