AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—The petitioner claims to be a journalist, and through this writ petition has prayed for an enquiry against respondent No. 4, regarding certain allegations of corruption.
We see no reason to order any such enquiry.
A large number of writ petitions are coming before this Court praying that enquiry against some official or Government servant be made regarding corruption and irregularities committed by them. This Court will be flooded with such cases, if such writ petitions are entertained. The standards of public life have gone down sharply in the last two or three decades, and this Court is helpless in such matters. It is for the political leadership to set up high standards of public life and morality, and unless they do so, it is idle to expect the judiciary to wipe out the corruption and fraud which is going on everywhere in our country on a large scale.
If there were only a few instances of corruption or misdemeanors by public servants the Court could have set things right, but when such misdeeds are rampant, what can the judiciary do? It does not have a magic wand to cure all ills. How many C.B.I. enquiries can the Judges order? And everyone has seen result of these enquiries. Moreover, we feel that a large number of such writ petitions where public enquiry is sought to be ordered against some officials are merely for blackmailing, and when some money is paid to the petitioner or some benefit is given to him, he withdraws the writ petition.
Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 in such cases. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum for this purpose.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation.