The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of the 50th Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observing that the offices held by constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration by self-styled warriors of public interest on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact.
Terming it a “publicity oriented litigation”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner for filing the instant writ petition without there being any material to support the allegations.
One Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari approached the Delhi High Court alleging that the appointment of the CJI was made in violation of various constitutional provisions. He sought for a stay on his appointment with immediate effect, in addition to an inquiry by the security agencies to find out if he has any kind of relation with “anti-nationals and Naxalite Christian terrorists”.
The plea further sought for a direction to strike out Order VIII Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, which mandates the use of English for the purpose of any proceeding before the Supreme Court, on the ground that it does not permit petitions to be filed in Hindi; along with strict disciplinary action against the Secretary General of the Supreme Court and other authorities alleged to have been harassing the litigants by violating the Official Languages Act, 1963.
Noting that nowadays there is an increasing abuse of public interest litigation by publicity mongers who institute PILs only to gain cheap popularity, the bench termed the instant petition an abuse of process of law and thereby a fit case to be “crushed at the threshold” in the strongest terms. The bench observed: “It is a fit case to be crushed at the threshold in the strongest terms. The prayers urged in this petition are not only against the genesis of a social interest litigation, but also revolt against the dignity of the constitutional office.”
The bench further observed, “The noble intentions that liberalized the rule of locus stand and permitted public spirited citizens to approach the constitutional courts, for the vindication of rights of those who find themselves incapable to do so, are confronted with a sad reality in litigations like the present one.”
Ruling that the constitutional provisions were complied with on the matter of appointment of the CJI, the bench went on to term the instant petition as a classic case of “wishful thinking” and noted that- “Whereas wishful thinking, in particular, is not a prohibited activity, but when it forms part of the grounds of a petition before the court, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and any such attempt must be repelled in a manner that it sends a tenacious message.”
“The message must be clear that the offices held by the constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration, that too in a court of law, by self-styled warriors of public interest on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact,” added the bench.
Read order below
1668510191181_84528_2022