Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Public Interest Litigation – Misuse of PIL – Maintainability of PIL – Two writ petitions as Public Interest Litigations filed before the High Court by respondent No. 1, seeking direction to the Directorate General, Investigation Income Tax to enquire into the money transferred by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand’s Family in the name of private respondents through the shell companies and to investigate the source of income of private respondents and investigate financial crime committed by the Chief Minister – In second one, direction sought to prosecute the Chief Minister for misusing his office in getting a mining lease in his own name – High Court holding the PIL maintainable and deciding to proceed on its merits – Held: Allegations which had been made of money laundering and money being invested in shell companies are mere allegations – Prayer to Investigation Agencies without substantiating allegation to investigate, is abuse of process of court –Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable and has not approached the Court with clean hands - No effort has been made by the respondent to approach the statutory authorities whereas the fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus – Non-disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under the PIL Rules 2010 discredits these petitions – There is no finding of the High Court that any further delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules 4, 4A, 4B, 5 but to the contrary – High Court held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A – Thus, even though the Rules have not been followed that AND ORS.
really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature – Allegations made by the respondents are vague, generalized and not substantiated to be called an evidence –On generalized averments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, the Court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities – It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL –Thus, the order passed by the High Court set aside – Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – rr 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 the allegations which had been made of money laundering and money being invested in shell companies are again mere allegations. The petitioner has actually sought an investigation by the Court. It prays for a writ of mandamus in this regard to the Investigating Agencies such as CBI or Enforcement Directorate to investigate. This is again an abuse of the process of the Court, as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations, there is nothing placed before the Court which in any way may be called to be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable and the clear fact that he has not approached the Court with clean hands makes it a case which was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. [Para 8][1157-F-G; 1158-A-B]
1.2 The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 is the one where a direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief Minister, who is also the Minister in the Department of Mines. The reason being that he has misused his office in getting a mining lease in his own name. This matter as regarding the mining lease in favour of the Chief Minister, i.e., Mr. Hemant Soren and his disqualification from office, is pending consideration with the Election Commission of India. So much for the second writ petition which is totally an abuse of the process of this Court. [Para 7][1156-E-G]
1.3 In the instant case no such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot beignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the present Public Interest Litigations, it is an admitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutory authorities or madeanyeffortin the registration of an FIR. [Para 10][1160-B-D]
1.4 The above Rules, 2010 were madepursuant to thedirections of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal’s case. Rules were to be framed so that it is no more left to the individual judges to devise their own procedure, but to ensure uniformity in entertaining a PIL, and to encourage genuine PIL and discourage PIL which are filed with oblique motive. Therefore, the importance of these Rules can never be underestimated. [Para 11][1163-E-F]
1.5 What is of crucial significance in a PIL is the bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant consideration and must beexamined by the Court at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL. [Para 12][1164-A-B]
1.6 In the reply filed by the State of Jharkhand before the High Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021, an objection was taken regarding the suppression of the earlier writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 as well. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as he did not disclose the dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 by the Jharkhand High Court with costs, an order which was upheld by this Court in SLP No. 4886 of 2014 by order dated 28.02.2014. This is alsoa clear violation of Rule, 4B of the Rules, 2010which required the petitioner to disclose of all similar efforts made in the past. [Para 13][1165-E-G]
1.7 No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 can be relaxed under Rule 6, for the reasons to be AND ORS.
recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgent intervention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow any delay to be caused in the matter. Presently, there is no finding or order of the Jharkhand High Court that any further delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules. To the contrary, the Jharkhand High Court has held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature. This reasoning is in teeth of the decision of this Court in directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal’s case, as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B. [Para 14][1165-G-H; 1166-A-B]
1.8 The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause. [Para 16][1169-F-G]
1.9 Petitioner in this case is admittedly the son of Dr. Gautam Sharma who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution in a criminal case against the fatherofthepresentChief Minister and therefore the Chief Minister has alleged an old enmity and personal vendetta at the hands of thepetitioner. In spite of such objection the PIL could have been heard had the petitioner come before the Court with clean hands. He has deliberately and wilfully with held from the Court that an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4218 of 2013) was filed on similar grounds seeking similar reliefs which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on 22.11.2013 with costs, an order which was upheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No. 4886 of 2014. [Para 17][1169-G-H; 1170-A-B]
1.10 Allegations which were made by the petitioner are vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruption and siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without substantiating the allegations in any manner whatsoever and is therefore only asking the Court to direct Central Bureau of Investigation or the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the matter. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes. [Para 18, 19][1170C-E]
1.11 Petitioner alleges that the one of the respondents who is the present Chief Minister of Jharkhand has amassed a huge wealth by corrupt means by abusing his position as a Chief Minister and has invested this money in about 32 companies of which description has been given. The petitioner then gives details of these companies as to who are the Directors, etc. The respondent or his relatives are not the Directors of the Companies. But then the petitioner states that he has information that he has been siphoning off this money and investing it in these shell companies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly a close associate of the Chief Minister. The allegations of the respondent of money laundering through shell companies has not been supplemented by any kind of evidence, whatsoever. The names of persons who are allegedly responsible for the operation of these companies have been mentioned, but without producing any concrete evidence, it has been stated that these persons are connected/close aides or related to the Chief Minister. Further, none of the companies have been made a party to the present PILs, before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is sought from the High Court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to investigate these so called “shell companies” without even making the companies a party in the writ proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitating the grievances and these petitions have been filed before the High Court, without availing the statutory remedies. [Para 20][1172-A-E]
1.12 It is not that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The non-disclosure of the credentials AND ORS.
of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under the Rules, 2010 further discredits these petitions. The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the High Court. Such a petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has a genuine reason to pursue the matter, he has his remedies available under the Companies Act or under other provisions of the law where he can apprise the relevant authorities of the misdeeds of the Directors or Promotors of the Companies. But on generalized averments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, the Court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities. It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands. The order passed by the High Court are set aside. [Para 21][1172-F-H; 1173-A]
KungaNima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC
513 : [2010] 3 SCR 787; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal&Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 : [2010] 1 SCR 678; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1987)
1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1 SCR819; BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC
333 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511; Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614 : [2007] 1 SCR 223; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors AIR 2004 SC 280 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716; Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra (2007) 14 SCC 28; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305– referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.