Case at a Glance
A self-described RTI activist who had, by the Court’s record, filed more than 200 petitions in the High Court, including 43 PILs, and hundreds of RTI applications against North Dum Dum Municipality, sought to withdraw his latest PIL. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge dismissed it as withdrawn without costs, but recorded that “it is high time that the State of West Bengal introduces the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act” on the lines of laws in Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, asked the State’s law officers to take it up, and directed that any future petition by him in the nature of a PIL must first go before the appropriate Bench before it can be registered as a PIL.
According to the order, the petitioner, described as an RTI activist, had filed more than 200 petitions in the High Court; his own counsel recalled about 116, including 43 PILs. An earlier order of 22 September 2022 had noted 195 cases. A compilation filed by North Dum Dum Municipality stated that he had filed 316 RTI applications in nine years raising over 1,000 queries, and the State Chief Information Commissioner had in 2023 disposed of 549 cases filed by him. Costs of Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 had been imposed on him in earlier matters, the latter in WPA(P) 211 of 2022, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.
When the present PIL was listed, the Municipality appeared, raised serious grievances against the petitioner and argued that he had misused the Right to Information Act, pointing out that he had filed 10 RTI applications in seven days and asking that he be barred from filing more. The Additional Advocate General submitted that he should be restrained from filing further PILs. The Municipality’s counsel noted that Maharashtra has the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1970 and that West Bengal has no equivalent. On 15 October 2026 the petitioner’s advocate tendered a Rs 50,000 demand draft in favour of the WBSLSA and, on instructions, sought to withdraw the petition without costs.
The Key Question Before the Court
How should the High Court deal with a litigant who repeatedly files public interest petitions, and should West Bengal have a law to curb vexatious litigation?
A call for legislation and a filter at the Registry
The Court made no observation at this stage on the request to restrict the petitioner’s RTI applications, leaving it open to the Municipality “to initiate steps as may be advised”, including before an appropriate forum. It directed that the Municipality be added as Respondent No. 12 and that the demand draft be handed over to the State Legal Services Authority, in compliance with the 2022 order.
On the broader issue, the Bench recorded that “it is high time that the State of West Bengal introduces the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act”, akin to the laws in Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, and called upon the Additional Government Pleader to initiate appropriate steps in consultation with the Advocate General to impress upon the State Government the need for such legislation. It dismissed the PIL as withdrawn without costs, and directed the Registry that if the petitioner files any petition in the nature of a PIL in future, “the said Petition would not be registered as a PIL unless it is placed before the appropriate Bench”, which will decide whether it deserves to be treated as a PIL. The order cites no precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- The PIL was dismissed as withdrawn on instructions, without costs, and the earlier Rs 50,000 costs were handed to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.
- The Court left it open to North Dum Dum Municipality to take steps as advised regarding the petitioner’s RTI applications, without expressing any view.
- It is high time that West Bengal introduced a Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act; the State’s law officers were asked to take steps to urge the Government.
- Any future petition by the petitioner in the nature of a PIL will not be registered as a PIL unless the appropriate Bench first decides that it deserves to be treated as one.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It adds judicial weight to calls for a vexatious litigation statute in West Bengal.
- It shows a measured judicial filter on a frequent litigant: screening by a Bench rather than an outright ban.
- It reflects growing judicial concern about misuse of PILs and RTI applications.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Public-Spirited Citizens
- PILs are for genuine public causes; repeated filings can attract costs and screening orders.
- Comply with costs orders; unpaid costs follow a litigant into later matters.
- RTI is a right, but authorities may seek remedies against what they consider abuse.
For Counsel
- Before filing a PIL, check the client’s litigation history and any restrictive orders against him.
- Where a public body faces repetitive litigation, place a documented compilation before the Court, as the Municipality did here.
- Note that the Court screened future PILs through a Bench rather than barring filing altogether.
Key Takeaways
- The Calcutta High Court called it high time for West Bengal to enact a Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act.
- Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu were cited as having such laws.
- Future PIL-type petitions by this litigant must first pass a Bench before registration as PILs.
- The present PIL was withdrawn without costs, and earlier costs were deposited with the WBSLSA.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a vexatious litigation law?
The order refers to statutes like the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1970. The Court recorded that West Bengal has no equivalent and called for one.
Was the petitioner banned from filing PILs?
No outright ban was imposed. The Court directed that any future petition of a PIL nature filed by him must be placed before the appropriate Bench, which will decide whether to treat it as a PIL, before the Registry registers it as one.
Did the Court restrict his RTI applications?
No. It made no observation on that request and left it open to North Dum Dum Municipality to take steps as advised before an appropriate forum.
Conclusion
The order is brief, but it carries a clear institutional message: courts and public bodies need tools to deal with litigants who file case after case. Rather than shutting the door, the Bench chose a filter, and asked the State to consider a legislative answer.
Practical takeaway: Frequent litigants should expect courts to screen their PILs; public authorities facing repetitive litigation can document it and seek appropriate directions, while the State has been urged to legislate.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com