DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 14-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.·A 
B 
c 
D 
DA TTARAJ NA THUJI THA WARE 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation 
Scope of-Discussed. 
Abuse-Stopping of-Exemplary punishment-Award of-Directions 
issue. 
Extra care to be taken by professionals before filing PIL-Discussed 
Regulatory mechanism vis-a-vis role of judiciary in handling of PIL-
Discussed 
Appellant, a legal professional, filed a 'Public Interest Litigation' 
before the Bombay High Court. The High Court found that there was 
E no public interest involved; that appellant had resorted to black mailing 
respondent Nos. 6 & 7 and he was also caught red handed accepting 
money from the respondents; and that allegation of unauthorized con-
structions as made against the respondents in the PIL were also not true. 
The petition was dismissed by the High Court with cost. Hence the 
F present appeal. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Though the_ petition filed by the petitioner carried the 
attractive brand mane of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can 
G be said is that it smacks of every thing what the Public Interest Litigation 
should not be. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy 
an important place in the administration of law should not be "publicity 
interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest 
litigation" or the latest trend "praise income litigation". The High Court 
H has found that the case at hand belong to the last category. (904-D, F] 
900 
DATTARAJNATHUJI THAWARE v. STATE 
901 
1.2. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the A 
litigation 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 yudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to 
be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary B 
jurisdiction. 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 of fundamental rights 
and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain 
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 
(904-G; 905-A] 
The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, [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 v. R.M 
Premchand, [1994] 6 SCC 620, relied on. 
Judicial Dictionary by Strouds Vol. 4 (Fourth Edition) and Law 
Dictionary by Black (Sixth Edition), referred to. 
1.3. Though this Court spare no efforts in fostering and developing 
c 
D 
the laudable concept of PIL and extending its long arm of sympathy to E 
the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental 
rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-
represented and unheard, yet there are genuine litigants with legitimate 
grievances relating to civil matters involving prqperties worth hundreds 
of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to 
death facing gallows under untold agony, and persons sentenced to life F 
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years. But others who 
filed the petition for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of 
publicity etc. break the qt.Jue muffing their faces by wearing the mask 
of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious 
and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of G 
the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors 
of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration 
in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in 
the administration of our judicial system. [907-A, B, C, D, EJ 
1.4. Public interest1itigation is a weapon which has to be used with H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
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. [907-F] 
B 
1.5. "Public Interest Liti

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