A division bench of Appearing Chief Justice Trilok Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya dismissed a public curiosity litigation (PIL) filed by a retired professor of journalism from Himachal Pradesh College and the chairman of Umang Basis, terming it a “mischievous” and “publicity-seeking litigation” and ordered him to pay damages of Rs 50,000 to the individuals posted at a juvenile care centre in Hira Nagar in Shimla for submitting a “frivolous” grievance, alleging inmates had been tortured.
“It’s greater than settled that the general public curiosity litigation is a weapon, which must be used with nice care and circumspection, and the judiciary must be extraordinarily cautious to see that behind the attractive veil of public curiosity an unpleasant personal malice, vested curiosity or public curiosity searching for shouldn’t be lurking. It’s for use as an efficient weapon within the armoury of regulation for delivering social justice to the residents,” the court docket noticed.
Based mostly on data offered over the phone by an inmate, launched on bail, and his father, petitioner Ajai Srivastava, a resident of Docs Colony at Decrease Panthaghati in Shimla, alleged beating, torture and misbehaviour at an remark house.
The court docket, nonetheless, famous the petitioner “didn’t confirm the accuracy of those claims or conduct earlier than addressing a letter to the Chief Justice on Could 13, 2024”.
The court docket additional famous the petitioner was knowledgeable by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) workplace in Solan that the inmate of the juvenile house had already lodged a grievance (on this connection). “Regardless of this, the petitioner selected to bypass the due course of and prematurely introduced the matter earlier than the court docket, lower than per week after the grievance was filed,” the bench mentioned.
The order reads: “As soon as the petitioner was totally conscious of the truth that the grievance had been lodged, then the least that was anticipated of him was to have at the very least waited for an affordable time in regards to the end result of the mentioned grievance slightly than addressing a letter to the Chief Justice on Could 13, lower than one week from the grievance had been made.”
“The petitioner being a retired professor was not anticipated to succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of points offering publicity. For, it’s settled that even an excellent trigger may be misplaced if the petitions are filed on half-baked data with out correct analysis as this might significantly have an effect on third social gathering rights mendacity within the on the spot case,” the order additional reads.
Appreciating the petitioner’s previous contributions to public curiosity causes, the division bench mentioned, “Such acknowledgement didn’t grant him the freedom to behave irresponsibly.”
The court docket mentioned the petitioner “failed to attend for the JJB’s resolution and as an alternative filed an unsubstantiated and reckless petition. The petition brought about undue hurt to respondents with one of many respondents shedding his job and others struggling reputational injury”.
Thus, dismissing the petition, the bench ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the respondents inside two weeks.
The court docket additionally directed the official respondents to take care of the established order because it existed earlier than the letter dated Could 13, 2024, guaranteeing all consequential advantages to respondents.
The bench sternly warned the petitioner towards participating in such “publicity-seeking litigation” sooner or later, stating, “PIL needs to be used judiciously and never as a device for private or vested pursuits.”
The matter has been listed for compliance on January 6, 2025.
When contacted, Srivastava mentioned, “We are able to method the Supreme Courtroom. I’ll file an attraction. Earlier, at the very least 5 of my PILs had been accepted within the honourable excessive court docket.”
