LexSURAZ INDIA TRUST versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 1 SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2016) MAYOl,2017 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.j A B Administration of Justice - Abuse of process of law - C Misconceived petitions - Petitioner-Trust repeatedly invoked the jurisdiction of Supreme Court by filing 64 misconceived petitions - As per record, petitioner did not find any success despite repeated endeavours - Petitioner took grievance to the highest executive fanctionaries - It also aired protestation against the officers of the · Registry of Supreme Court, even filed contempt petition against the D then Chief Justice and expressed his ire against the other Judges - Held: The waste of judicial time is a matter of serious concern - The course of action adopted by the petitioner was not in consonance with law - Filing of contempt petitions on issues which lacked justification, highlighted the petitioners misadventures - All such E misadventures have to be dealt with sternly, so as to prevent abuse of judicial time - Therefore, petitioner directly or through any individual refrained absolutely, from filing any cause in public interest, before any Court of this country - To discourage . indiscretion of instant nature, cost of Rs.25 lakhs imposed on the petitioner - Public Interest Litigation. F Disposing of the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. The narration recorded hereinabove, leaves no room for any doubt, that the petitioner's (Suraz India Trust) . actions, in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, were clearly uncalled for. In 64 of the cases, when Suraz India Trust G approached this Court, it did not find ariy success whatsoever, and not a single direction, ever came to be issued by this Court, out of its repeated endeavours. No one, who does not understand the nicety of legal issues, as has been demonstrated by the actions of Suraz India Trust, can be permitted to endlessly waste Court, H 1 . . . 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A time. The different contempt petitions filed by Suraz India Trust, against a Chief Justice (whilst he was still in office), and against the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, amongst others, were wholly groundless, baseless and ill-founded. [Para 231 [30- A-CI B c 2. The waste of judicial time of this Court, is a matter of serious concern. The course of action adopted by the petitioner (despite its alleged, bona fide intention), was not in consonance with law. When the petitioner did not get the orders that it hoped for (or, felt it was entitled to), the petitioner pointedly expressed its anger, towards all and sundry ... and even by name. The petitioner took its grievance, to the highest executive functionaries in this country. The petitioner agitated its claim, by airing its grievances to the Chief Justice of India and the Judges of this Court - at their private residences. The petitioner aired its protestation, even against the Secretary General of the D Supreme Court. These officers were targeted because they had filed/lodged matters filed by Suraz India Trust, for the simple reason, that they were not maintainable. Having considered the same, the administrative determination by officers of the Registry of this Court, was fully justified. I Para 24) )30-D-FI E 3. The posting of a matter filed by the petitioner, by the then Chief Justice, before a three-Judge Bench, was also a matter which was unnecessarily agitated repeatedly. Even by filing contempt petitions against the then Chief Justice himself. Filing contempt petitions, one after the other, on issues which lacked justification, also highlighted the Trust's illegitimate F misadventures. Mr. Rajiv Daiya, appearing for the petitioner Trust, is an emboldened persona. He has expressed his ire even against six Judges of the Rajasthan High Court, including its Chief Justice, and against three Judges of the Supreme Court, besides its Chief Justice. All these actions of the petitioner were wholly G unjustified. Mr. Rajiv Daiya did not attempt, to even make the slightest effort, to reason out the same, or to demonstrate the veracity of his actions. l:laving gone through the hearing, over a length of time expressed hereinabove, the least one can say is, that the petitioner has been seriously remiss, in his judicial interventions. [Para 251 [30-G-H; 31-A-BI H SURAZ INDIA TRUST v. UNION OF IN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.