NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 10-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES 
v. 
-+ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY I 0, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Public Interest Litigation: 
,..,,._ 
,.. 
c 
Writ petition filed under public interest litigation-Maintainability 
of-A/legations against Narmada Bachao Ando/an and its activists-Alleging 
acquisition and supply of arms and explosives to obstruct progress of projeCts 
t 
of national importance-Directions sought for investigation into routing of 
foreign funds towards activities of respondents 4 to 6-lnspection of books 
D 
of accounts of organizations concerned revealing no violation of 1976 Act-
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 
H 
respondents 4 to 6 and its subordinate and supportive organiz.ations. The Court 
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, B 
submitted that the instant writ petition was the result of the grudge harboured 
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 a

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