Nirdesh Kumar Dixit and Others vs Antonia Mario @ Sonia Gandhi, Member of Parliament and Others

Jagdish Bhalla, J.—Petitioners are Advocates by profession and claim to be the Secretaries of ''Rastra Raksha Manch'' and Hindu Personal Law Board, Petitioners are said to be the Secretaries of ''Rastra Raksha Manch'' and Hindu Personal Law Board. They have filed the present writ petition as Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Prime Minister and Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs to forefeit the passport of Mrs. Anotonia Mario @ Sonia Gandhi and Sri Natwar Singh, Minister, Government of India, who have been named in the Vokar Committee report. Prayer for lodging of criminal case and investigation by C.B.I. has also been prayed for, apart from quashing the order of appointment of one man Enquiry Committee.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing for the Union of India and State Government.

The petitioners, who are Advocates by profession, have failed to establish violation of any rights guaranteed under the Constitution or by any statutory provision, cannot be said to have any locus standi to bring the instant PIL petition. The petitioners have not even annexed the report of Volkar Committee on the strength of which it has been stated that the names of respondents Nos.1 and 2 find place in the said report. In the writ petition, description of some letters written by the respondent No.1 have also been given but none of the copies have been brought on record. Petitioners have also not brought on record the order of appointment of Justice R.S. Pathak, Former Chief Justice of India as Chairman of the Enquiry Commission. However, the said appointment is a policy decision, which lies purely within the domain of the Government. We would further like to add that judicial scrutiny in such matters is restricted to the violation of law or strong malafides. The petitioner has failed to indicate any violation of law nor there is any foundation of malafides in appointment of one man Commission.

Through catena of judgments the Hon''ble Supreme Court as also this Court it has been laid down that judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the Government. The Court shows interference mainly where there is an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor, downtrodden and the under privileged who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage.

Here it is not so.

Time and again the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court has stated that only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights but not a person for political motive or any oblique consideration. It may also be stated that forum of PIL should not be allowed as a medium for character assassination of any public figure which is meant only for the public activists to espouse the cause of the poor citizens.

The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined �Public Interest Litigation� in its Report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:

�Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts which provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interest. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others.�

Recently, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2005) 5 SCC 136 My Lord Justice Arijit Pasayat speaking for the Bench said:

�Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions, Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. [See: State of Maharasthra v. Prabhu and A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR ReRolling Mills]. No Litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See: Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) v. K. Parasaran]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.�

It would also be relevant to mention that in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters in respect of Public Interest Litigation and the present writ petition do not fall in any of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.

Considering the facts in its entirety and the legal position enumerated hereinabove, we are of the view that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(Petition dismissed)