Some Employees of Hindustan Latex Ltd. vs State of Kerala and Others

P.A. Mohammed, J.—The substance of this writ petition is an anonymous complaint brought in before the notice of this court against the management of M/ s. Hindustan Latex Limited, a Government of India Undertaking (for short ''the Company''). Normally if an anonymous complaint is received, it will find its place in cesspool. This court will always regard it with disdain. But in the present case, the complaint has obtained an honoured position since it has been numbered as letter O.P. by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, obviously for certain reasons. It contains serious allegations against the management of the Company. It is stated to have been written by certain employees of the Company styling itself as a ''public interest litigation''.

On receipt of notice from this court, the counsel appeared for the Company. Government Pleader appeared for the State of Kerala. I have heard them at some length.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company. Normally I have no option except to accept the same because there is nobody before me to controvert or criticise it. There is none to project before this court the other side of its picture. The court is seriously faced with a predicament as to the disposal of the complaint involved in this writ petition because the acceptance of the case in the counter affidavit would otherwise be interpreted to mean that the Company is absolved of all charges or this court has ''approved all its ''actions''. It is actually here where the anonymous complaint falls. This court cannot deviate from its normal procedure and act as a prosecutor of the complaint. The law does not permit it; nor does it allow compromise even for goodness. This is one of the inevitable consequences of registering such complaint as "Letter O.P.".

In the aforesaid premises, I would prefer to examine the lively question whether public interest litigation arising from anonymous complaint is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. No, answer is definite. While saying so, I am fully conscious of the "newly developed doctrine" of "public interest litigation (PIL)" recognised by the Supreme Court in various decisions. While entertaining the public interest litigation there is a bounden duty on the part of the Court to examine as to whether such litigations are motivated by the bona fide intentions or are moved by responsible persons or body of persons. The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, moved by renowned Senior Advocates V.M. Tarkunde, Iqbal M. Chagla, S.P. Gupta and others, gave a cautious warning to the courts while dealing with public interest litigation. The following observation is apposite:

"But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective."

In Shri Sachidanand Pandey and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, the Supreme Court observed :

"If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, traditional litigations will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions."

In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Others, the Supreme Court said about the public interest litigations thus:

"This is an innovative strategy which has been evolved by the Supreme Court for the purpose of providing easy access to justice to the weaker sections of Indian humanity and it is a powerful tool in the hands of public spirited individuals and social action groups for combating exploitation and injustice and securing for the under-privileged segments of society their social and economic entitlements. It is a highly effective weapon in the armoury of the law for reaching social justice to the common man."

At the same time, it gave severe warning in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, as thus:

"While this court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration."

A Division Bench of this court in Raghavan Nair v. Union of India 1994 (2) KLT 23 (Short Notes -- Case No. 30) dismissed a public interest litigation with costs observing as below:

"We may add saying that if we have a feeling that the petitioner is not fighting a case beneficial to the public at large, but a case which is intended to be beneficial to a particular individual/individuals not before us and who do not want to come as petitioners, then also we need not entertain the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the precious time of this court, both before the learned single Judge and before us, has been wasted by the filing of such a case, we think that we should award costs against the petitioner which can go to the Legal Aid Board."

The principle of ''locus standi'' presupposes the presence of a person or body of persons who suffered a legal injury. In all the public interest litigation cases the person or body of persons who moves the court for relief is well-known and certain. Thus the public interest litigation petitions are always synonymous with authority. Therefore, according to me, the anonymous complaints or petitions forwarded to this court shall not be entertained as "Letter O.Ps'' involving public interest litigations, under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this context the following observation of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Others, is apt to the point:

"It is difficult to see how any proceedings can be entertained by the court keeping the petitioner before it anonymous or his identity secret. If the identity of the petitioner is not disclosed, how would the respondent against whom relief is sought ever be able to verify the authenticity of the petitioner and the credibility of the case brought by him. It would be contrary to all canons of fair play and violative of all principles of judicial propriety and administration to entertain a writ petition without disclosing the identity of the petitioner, though the Court knows who the petitioner is.

(Italics supplied)

This letter O.P. is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable in law.

Before parting with this case, I am constrained to add that the practice of entertaining anonymous complaints/letters as writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be totally restrained in the interest of maintaining the well recognised Court procedure existing now. If this practice is allowed to be continued, this Court will face with cornucopia of such complaints/letters every day which will ultimately paralyse the entire judicial system.