LexDR. B. SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 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 G 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 deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.