AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to effect the correct spelling
in English language against the age-old customary one, towards the name of our language and State, which remains as ""Tamil"" and ""Tamil Nadu"" as
Tamizh"" and ""Tamizh Nadu"" including the change of the name of this High Court as ""Tamizh Nadu High Court"" instead of the Madras High Court
forthwith in the interest of the principles of literalism and for the glorification of the ancient language, State and High Court.
The petitioner appearing as party-in-person has filed this writ petition staling that it is filed in the interest of Tamizh masses. It is alleged in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the State was re-named from the original name of Madras State by the then Chief Minister late Dr.
C.N. Annadurai in the year 1967, but the spelling of the name in English language remains unaltered and its pronunciation as ""Tamil"" by the
Britishers is continued. It is also stated by the petitioner that Britishers were negligent in so far as the pronounication of the language is concerned
and as such the spelling of the name of the language should be ""Thamizh"" instead of ""Tamil"" and also the spelling of the name of the State also of
Tamil Nadu (Bakthavatsalam, J.) should be changed as ""Tamizh Nadu"" instead of ""Tamil Nadu"". It is also alleged in the affidavit that though the
petitioner is concerned about the spelling of very many other words in English language, he is very much concerned about the spelling of the name
language, i.e., mother-tongue, Thamizh. The petitioner has narrated as to how certain words are spelt in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition. The petitioner also alleges that even in the cause list of the Apex Court of the land at the personal request insisted upon
to print as ""Tamizh Nadu"" instead ""Tamil Nadu"" and got his cases listed where he appeared as party-in-person. It is also stated that in order to
safeguard the glory of the language and the State the petitioner wants a direction from this Court to correct the language against the age-old
customary one which is totally wrong and according to him, contrary to the principles of literalism, which remain as ""Tamil"" and ""Tamil Nadu"" and
the petitioner wants to change it is to be spelt as ""Tamizh"" and ""Tamizh Naadu"" and also ""Tamizh Naadu High Court"" instead of ""Madras High
Court"" forthwith.
I have heard the arguments of the petitioner, who appears in party-in-person and have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition. Though the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person, has styled himself as a social worker and public interest litigant, nowhere in the
affidavit it is stated that the writ petition is filed as public interest litigation but it is stated that in the interest of Tamizh masses the case is filed before
this Court in para 2 of the affidavit. It may be stated immediately that the approach of the petitioner, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court, as a public interest litigant, cannot be accepted. In my view, it is not a public interest litigation, but it is a self advertisement litigation. The
writ petition itself is wholly misconceived, and the prayer as asked for, cannot be granted. Sub-clause (2) of Article l of the Constitution of India
defines that the States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. In the First Schedule, Item 7 is shown as Tamil Nadu''.
Originally, it was called as ''Madras''. The name of ''Madras'' has been changed to ''Tamil Nadu'' by the Madras State (Alteration of Name) Act,
1968, (Act No. 53 of 1968). In the fourth schedule also read with Articles 4(1) and 32 of the Constitution of India, the term Tamil Nadu''
appears. As such, it is seen that even in the Constitution of India itself, for the term spelling in ''Tamil Naadu'' alone is used. When the Constitution
itself used the word Tamil Nadu'', I do not think the petitioner can ask for a direction to issue to the respondent as asked for, to change the spelling
of the term ""Tamil Nadu"" as ""Tamizh Naadu"". If any of such change has to be done, in my view, it has to be done only by Parliament and not by
anybody else, more so, by the respondent before this Court. So I am of the view, that without looking into the provisions of the Constitution, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition as if he is interested in the glorification of the Tamil language. So the effect of Articles of the Constitution and
Central Act LIII of 1968 cannot be changed, as asked for, by the petitioner, by an administrative order. In my view, the writ petition has been
filed, as I have already stated, to have a self-advertisement It is to be deprecated.
More so, it is of common knowledge that when the term ""Tamil"" is used it is spelt as only and only when they were translated into English they
were spelt differently, as stated by the petitioner. As such, when it is used within the State of Tamil Nadu, the grandeur of the language is not lost.
That apart, if the spelling of the term has to be changed as stated by the petitioner, it cannot be done by issuing a writ of mandamus and if any such
writ is issued, in my view, it will be against what all is stated in'' the Articles of the Constitution of India. More so, I am of the view that a term in
one language cannot be written in another language and if it is written it will be only artificial and it will not be in the original form.
Having said so, it is necessary for me to see as to whether this writ petition can be called as ''Public interest litigation'' at all and to be entertained
by this Court. Surely, the petitioner has no right to come up before this Court with such a prayer. In S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others,
, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
We would, therefore, hold that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising
from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and
observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of justice and
accelerating the pace of realisation of the constitutional objective.
In Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, , a note of caution was administered by the Supreme Court:
....Today public spirited litigants rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in courts and
among the public. They must be above suspicions....
In the same case, it has been further held:
It is only when Courts are apprised by of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic, human rights are invaded
or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the Courts, especially this Court should leave aside procedural
shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the
under dog and the neglected. I will be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does not mean that the doors of this
Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed restraint on public interest litigants...
It has also been held by the Supreme Court in Sheela Brase v. Union of India AIR 1982 S.C. 2211 at page 2212, as follows:
...The proceedings in a public interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of
the rights, constitutional or statutory of sizeable segments of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economic disadvantages
cannot themselves assert-and quite often not even aware of-those rights...
It has been further held as follows:
The grievance in a public interest action, generally speaking, is about the content and conduct of governmental action in relation to the constitutional
and statutory rights of segments of society and in certain circumstances the conduct of governmental-policies...
Mishra, J. in Gopalan, Public Interest Litigant v. The Union of India, 1990 Writ L.R. 297; has held (at p.300) as follows:
...On the question of locus standi of a person to maintain a writ of certiorari, which rule in my view, has to apply strictly to a writ of mandamus or
for any other direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and Others, , held: ""It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall
in any of these categories: (i) person aggrieved; (ii) stranger''; (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are easily
distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern them. They masquerade as
crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to
protect. They indulge in the pastime of meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are
actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity, while the ulterior intent of some applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking
the wheels of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the applications of such busy bodies at the threshold.
It is thereafter the Supreme Court said:
...The distinction between the first and categories of applicant, though real is not always well demarcated. The first category has, as it were, two
concentric zones, a solid central zone of certainty and a grey outer circle of lessening certainly in a sliding centrifugal scale, with an outer nebulous
fringe of uncertainty. Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand
in the category of ''person aggrieved''. In the grey outer-circle the bounds which separate the first category from the second intermix, interface and
overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in this outer zone may not be ''persons aggrieved''.
Some broad tests which are applied therefore to find out who amongst the strangers is a person aggrieved, who can maintain a litigation in a court
of law on behalf of ""..another, the Supreme Court has said:
Whether the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense that his Interest,
recognised by law has been prejudicially and directly affected by the act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he 3 person who has
suffered a legal grievance, a person ''against'' whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully
refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something?. Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond some grievance
or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the authority before it took the
impugned action? If so, was he prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority?
Is the statute, in the context of which the scope of the words ''person aggrieved'' is being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay
down ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals?
In S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, , the Supreme Court has said:
It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to
approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court
under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons in this Court under Article 32
seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such persons....But we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves
the court for judicial redressal in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for
personal grain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the
instance of such person and must reject this application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a letter addressed to the court or even in form
of a regular writ petition filed in court. We may also point out that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law, the court may confine this
strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or group of persons or the constitutional
or legal right of such determinate class or group of persons is violated and as far as possible, not entertain cause of individual wrong or injury at the
instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases...
With respect I agree with Mishra, J., on this point. Looking at the backdrop of the decisions Cited above, in my view, the writ petition cannot be
entertained, as a public interest litigation. I am also of the view that the issue raised in this writ petition is not justiciable. In my view it is the duty of
this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is well settled that locus standi to approach by way of writ petition and refusal to grant relief in
enquiry jurisdiction are two different aspects. In this case, in my view, the petitioner has no locus standi at all to come up to this Court, that too,
styling the writ petition as public interest litigation. That apart, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being discretionary, I do not
think the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner on the facts and circumstances of this case. So looking at any angle, I do not think
there is any substance in the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit. There are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly it is
dismissed.