ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 18-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY 
v. 
THE STA TL OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18,2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU ANDARIJITPASAYAT, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation: 
Locus stand.._Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court 
C for conversion of the death sentence to life sentence imposed on the accused 
as there had been no execution of the death sentence for a long time--Held: 
There must be a real and genuine public interest involved in a Public Interest 
litigation (PIL)-A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in 
the litigation alone has the locus standi-PIL should be aimed at redressal 
D of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or 
founded on personal vendetta-On facts, the petitioner did not have locus 
standi to file the Pll-Hence, petition dismissed. 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
E 
Article 32-Writ petition-Right to seek redress-Held: Ordinarily the 
aggrieved party only has the right to enforce his fundamental rights-If such 
party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any legal disability 
any other person may move the Supreme Court on his behalf-Code of 
Criminal Procedure, I973-Ss. 320. (4)(a), 335(/)(b) and :139. 
F 
The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution to the effect that the death sentence imposed on the accused by 
the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court and this Court needed to 
be converted to life sentence because there had been no execution of the death 
sentence for a long time. 
G 
According to the petitioner, he saw a news item in a TV channel wherein 
it was shown that the authorities were unaware about the non-execution of 
the death sentence and, therefore the condemned prisoner-the accused, had 
suffered a great degree of mental torture and that itself was a ground for 
conversion of his death sentence to life sentence on the basis of the ratio in 
II 
716 
ASH OK KUMAR PANDEY v. STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
717 
Smt. Triveniben v. State a/Gujarat, [1989) l sec 678. The petitioner further A 
contended that as a public-spirited citizen of the country, he had a locus to 
present the petition and when the matter involved life and liberty of a citizen, 
this Court should not stand on technicalities and should give effect to the 
ratio in Triveniben's case. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD: I.I. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a 
public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal 
disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. [722-C) 
B 
1.2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which has now come to occupy an C 
important field in the administration of law, should not be "publicity interest 
litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or 
the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse 
averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and 
wreck vengeance, as well. There must be a real and genuine public interest D 
involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight-errant or poke 
one into for a probe. 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 be polluted by 
unscrupulous litigants by resorting to these extraordinary jurisdiction. A 
person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of E 
public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the 
Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of 
statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political 
motive or any oblique consideration. (722-D-F) 
Janata Dal v. HS. Choudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup F 
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [1994) Supp. 2 ACC ll6, relied on. 
Smt. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, (1989) l SCC 678, Sunil Batra (II) 
v. Delhi Adminstration, (1980)3 SCC 488, S.P. Guptqv. Union of India, )1981) 
Supp. sec 87 and Daya Singh v. Union of India, (1991) 3 sec 61, referred G 
to. 
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Vol. 4 Raman (!Vth. Edition) and Black's 
Law Dectionary (Sixth Edition), referred to. 
1.3. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also 
with 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.