HC- to curb Tsunami of PILs, Trust to deposit Rs. 25000 per PIL
The Lucknow
bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that its order dated 11 April 2014 of
depositing Rs. 25,000 per PIL ordered for social activist Dr Nutan Thakur shall
be applicable for People’s Forum as well.
The
bench of Chief Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud and Justice D K Arora said that ex
facie, the device of constituting a Deed of Declaration of a public charitable
trust People’s Forum was used only to circumvent compliance with the above order.
The
High Court said that since a coordinate Bench passed this order to respond to a
situation where the litigative process of the Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction in public interest is literally being high-jacked by a 'tsunami of
writ petitions' touching matters which hit the headlines in the media, it is
necessary for the High Court, as an institution, to ensure that any effort
deviously engineered to evade compliance of the order of the Division Bench is
put down with a firm hand. It said that if the High Court were not to do so,
that will threaten the credibility of the institution.
People’s
Forum had recently filed 3 PILs, about illegal appointment of C B Yadav as Additional
Advocate General, rampant transfer of IAS and IPS officers in UP which High Court
dismissed with this order and stopping appointments of Supreme Court and High
Courts pending the constitutional process leading to the 121st Constitutional
Amendment.
People’s
Forum has said that it shall challenge this order in the Supreme Court because
it improperly assumes on completely superficial grounds that the Trust was
formed merely to circumvent the High Court.
This is another effort on the path of struggle for Judicial reforms.
Attached-
High Court order
हाई कोर्ट- पीआईएल सुनामी से बचने हेतु संस्था प्रति पीआईएल 25000 जमा करे
इलाहाबाद
हाई कोर्ट के लखनऊ बेंच ने आदेश दिया है कि उनके द्वारा सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता डॉ
नूतन ठाकुर को प्रति पीआईएल 25000 रुपये जमा करने का 11 अप्रैल 2014 का आदेश पीपल्स
फोरम संस्था पर भी लागू होगा.
चीफ
जस्टिस डॉ डी वाई चंद्रचूड और जस्टिस डी के अरोरा की बेंच ने कहा कि प्रथमद्रष्टया
यह दिख जाता है कि पीपल्स फोरम संस्था एक ट्रस्ट के रूप में मात्र हाई कोर्ट के
आदेश से बचने के लिए बनायी गयी थी.
हाई
कोर्ट ने कहा कि चूँकि एक समकक्ष बेंच ने मीडिया में आने वाले तमाम मामलों में दायर
“रिट याचिकाओं की सुनामी” से बचने के लिए यह आदेश दिया था, अतः यह आवश्यक है कि
हाई कोर्ट एक संस्था के रूप में यह सुनिश्चित करे कि उसके डिविजन बेंच के आदेश से
बचने के सभी प्रयासों को मजबूती से विफल कर दिया जाए. आदेश में कहा गया कि यदि ऐसा
नहीं किया गया तो लोगों की निगाह में हाई कोर्ट की विश्वसनीयता कम हो जायेगी.
पीपल्स
फोरम ने हाल में सी बी यादब को अवैधानिक तरीके से अस्थायी महाधिवक्ता बनाने, यूपी
में आईएएस और आईपीएस अफसरों का ताबड़तोड़ तबादला किये जाने और नए एक्ट ने आने तक
सुप्रीम कोर्ट और हाई कोर्ट में पुराने कोलेजियम व्यवस्था से नियुक्ति नहीं करने विषयक
तीन पीआयेक दायर किये थे.
पीपल्स
फोरम ने कहा है कि वह इस आदेश को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चुनौती देगा क्योंकि इसमें
सतही आधार पर स्वतः मान लिया गया है कि ट्रस्ट का गठन मात्र हाई कोर्ट आदेश से
बचने के लिए किया गया है.
यह न्यायिक सुधार की लड़ाई की दिशा में हमारा एक और प्रयास होगा.
संलग्न-
हाई कोर्ट का आदेश
डॉ
नूतन ठाकुर
कन्वेनर, पीपल’स फोरम
# 094155-34525
High Court Order----
HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7459 of 2014
Petitioner :- People's Forum through its Convener Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondents :- Sri C.B. Yadav, Additional Advocate General Govt. of U.P.&
Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pandey, Tripuresh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondents :- C.S.C.
With
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6952 of 2014
Petitioner :- People's Forum through its Convener
Respondent :- Allahabad High Court thrugh Senior Registrar, Allahabad High
Court, Lucknow Bench
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur (In Person)
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar
With
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7801 of 2014
Petitioner :- People's Forum through its Convener Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondents :- Union of India through the Secy. Ministry of Law & Justice
& Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande, Tripuresh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondents :- A.S.G., Alok Mathur
And
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7723 of 2014
Petitioner :- People's Forum through its Convener Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondents :-State of U.P. through the Prin. Secy. Appointment, Lko. and Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur [In person], Ashok Pandey
Counsel for Respondents :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.
All the four writ petitions before the Court have been filed by an organization
described as "People's Forum through its convener Dr Nutan Thakur, address
- 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow". The reliefs which are sought
in the petitions are briefly described as follows:
(i) A writ of quo-warranto directing the Additional Advocate General to
immediately vacate the administrative charge of the post of Advocate General
pursuant to an order of the State Government dated 6 August 20141;
(ii) A writ of mandamus for enforcing the provisions of the Indian
Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014 and the Indian
Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 20142;
(iii) A writ of mandamus directing the Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice as well as the Union of India through the Principal
Secretary to the President of India to immediately stop all further
appointments of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts through
what is described in the petition as a "so-called collegium system which
has been turned down by Parliament of India", and to make further
appointments only in accordance with the provisions of the National Judicial
Appointments Bill, 2014 and the 121st Constitutional Amendment Bill, 20143; and
(iv) A writ of mandamus directing the Registry of this Court to entertain all
Public Interest Litigation filed by the People's Forum, either through its
convener or through anyone else without applying the judicial order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court on 11 April 2014 in Writ Petition No. 2967 of
2014.
On 11 April 2014, a Division Bench of this Court heard Writ Petition No. 2967
of 2014 which was filed in public interest by Dr Nutan Thakur challenging the
validity of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, enacted for the
constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing
proximate security to the Prime Minister of India, former Prime Ministers of
India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected
therewith. The Division Bench held that the petition was entirely baseless and
had been filed with an oblique purpose of seeking publicity. The Division Bench
observed as follows:
"We find that the writ petition is entirely baseless, and has been filed
with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity. The petitioner does not appear
to have the locus and understanding of the importance of security which is
required to be provided to the Prime Minister, former Primer Ministers and
their family members. After assassination of the former Prime Minister of the
country, the Special Security Group Act was enacted, to protect the highest
public executive functionary of the country from threats extended by terrorist
organizations. The importance of this Act cannot be overstated. The Act itself
provides in the proviso to Section 4 (1) and Section 4(1A) of the assessment of
level of threat periodically for continuing the security and the guidelines for
such assessment. We thus find the challenge of the Act, as ultra vires to
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is entirely baseless and
frivolous."
The Division Bench recorded that the Court was informed that Dr Nutan Thakur
has filed as many as 140 writ petitions styled as 'public interest cases'.
Details of those writ petitions were placed on the record of the order that was
passed on 11 April 2014. It would be necessary, at this stage, to extract from
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, which read as follows:
"5. We are informed, and are confirmed by Dr. Nutan Thakur - the
petitioner appearing in person that she has filed about 140 writ petitions
under the category of public interest litigation. She appears in Court almost
every day, for these matters. She has become a self-styled PIL specialist, and
her name regularly appears in news papers. Some of the writ petitions filed by
the petitioner have been entertained by this Court. Even her husband, a serving
IPS Officer of IG rank indulges in filing writ petitions in public interest
numbering more than 20 upto the beginning of this month. Together the petitioner
and husband have filed 160 writ petitions in purported public interest matters
in last three to four years.
6. The Registry has supplied a list of 86 cases, which have been filed by the
petitioner Dr. Nutan Thakur in person, in which she is the first petitioner,
which is extracted as under:-
Sl No.
Case No./Year
Pet Adv
Res Adv
Status (Last Listed)
1
CONT 1998-2010
NUTAN THAKUR
C S C
Disposed (04/01/2011)
2
CONT 1097-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (16/05/2012)
3
CONT 1170-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (23/05/2012)
4
CONT 2739-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (18/10/2012)
5
CONT 935-2013
NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
K K SHARMA
Disposed (08/07/2013)
6
CONT 2865-2013
DR NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending (24/02/2014)
7
MISB 8305-2010
NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
MANISH KUMAR
Disposed (25/08/2010)
8
MISB 11447-2010
NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
P.N. GUPTA
Pending (15/02/2011)
9
MISB 11842-2011
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
G.A.
Disposed (04/07/2013)
10
MISB 479-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (17/01/2012)
11
MISB 1361-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
O.P. SRIVASTAVA
Disposed (16/02/2012)
12
MISB 1574-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (26/03/2012)
13
MISB 1949-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR
A.S.G.
Disposed (15/03/2012)
14
MISB 1999-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (26/03/2012)
15
MISB 2425-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (15/10/2012)
16
MISB 2589-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (15/10/2012)
17
MISB 2685-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (10/04/2012)
18
MISB 3233-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
BIRESHWAR NATH
Disposed (01/05/2012)
19
MISB 3640-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (01/01/1900)
20
MISB 6053-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (16/10/2012)
21
MISB 7364-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (15/07/2013)
22
MISB 7427-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (29/08/2013)
23
MISB 7596-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending (15/10/2012)
24
MISB 9431-2012
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (08/11/2012)
25
MISB 133-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (08/01/2013)
26
MISB 259-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (19/04/2013)
27
MISB 360-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (23/04/2014)
28
MISB 446-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (21/01/2013)
29
MISB 834-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (30/01/2013)
30
MISB 882-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
GOVT. ADVOCATE
Pending (05/10/2013)
31
MISB 1147-2013
DR NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (14/02/2014)
32
MISB 1587-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (02/05/2013)
33
MISB 1748-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (22/08/2013)
34
MISB 2174-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (13/03/2013)
35
MISB 2717-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (02/09/2013)
36
MISB 2732-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (03/04/2013)
37
MISB 3327-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (23/04/2013)
38
MISB 3493-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (01/01/1900)
39
MISB 3572-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (30/04/2013)
40
MISB 3818-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (17/04/2014)
41
MISB 3885-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (13/05/2013)
42
MISB 4574-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (01/07/2013)
43
MISB 5927-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (11/07/2013)
44
MISB 6509-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (01/01/1900)
45
MISB 7218-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (28/10/2013)
46
MISB 7295-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending ( / / )
47
MISB 7674-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (03/09/2013)
48
MISB 7955-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending ( / / )
49
MISB 8497-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (24/09/2013)
50
MISB 8502-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (19/09/2013)
51
MISB 8764-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (25/09/2013)
52
MISB 8802-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (25/09/2013)
53
MISB 9318-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
MANISH MATHUR
Disposed (07/10/2013)
54
MISB 9493-2013
DR NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (28/01/2014)
55
MISB 9587-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (08/11/2013)
56
MISB 9976-2013
DR NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending (12/12/2013)
57
MISB 10159-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (30/10/2013)
58
MISB 10714-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending (27/01/2014)
59
MISB 10734-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (19/11/2013)
60
MISB 10994-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (26/11/2013)
61
MISB 11325-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
LALIT SHUKLA
Disposed (04/12/2013)
62
MISB 11796-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (17/12/2013)
63
MISB 480-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending (17/02/2014)
64
MISB 607-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (29/01/2014)
65
MISB 624-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (29/01/2014)
66
MISB 649-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Disposed (11/02/2014)
67
MISB 735-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
S.M. RAYEKWAR
Pending ( / / )
68
MISB 1137-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (19/02/2014)
69
MISB 1239-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Disposed (14/02/2014)
70
MISB 1518-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending ( / / )
71
MISB 1602-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (11/04/2014)
72
MISB 1890-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (01/01/1900)
73
MISB 2008-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending ( / / )
74
MISB 2367-2014
NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending ( / / )
75
MISB 2530-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
C.S.C.
Pending (22/04/2014)
76
MISB 2761-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
MANISH KUMAR
Pending ( / / )
77
MISB 2967-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
A.S.G.
Pending (11/04/2014)
78
REVP 552-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (03/10/2013)
79
REVP 553-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (03/10/2013)
80
REVP 604-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (22/10/2013)
81
REVP 627-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (31/10/2013)
82
REVP 658-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending (06/12/2013)
83
REVP 69-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (07/02/2014)
84
REVP 74-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (07/02/2014)
85
REVP 325-2014
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Pending ( / / )
86
REVPD 563-2013
DR.NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)
Disposed (22/11/2013)
The Division Bench adverted to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of
Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, particularly to the observations of the
Supreme Court to the effect that of late, the jurisdiction in public interest
has been usurped for a blatant abuse of the process and for extraneous
purposes. The Division Bench noted that Dr Nutan Thakur has raised issues of public
interest before the Court within a few days when any social or political issue
attracts the attention of the media and almost all the writ petitions have been
filed on the basis of newspaper reports. The Division Bench observed as
follows:
"8. In many of the files of public interest litigation filed by the
petitioner, examined by the Court, we find that the petitioner has raised
issues within a few days when any social or political issue attracts the
attention of the media. Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any
research or material and based only on the newspaper reports. The petitioner
appears to have a permanent presence before the Bench hearing public interest
litigation matters. It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the
orders that the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such
petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving other
important matters.
9. Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in
public interest. These writ petitions have been filed covering almost every
subject covered by media to be topical mostly concerning social, political
economic or commercial interest. She has also allowed her children, still minor
in filing writ petitions; the last one concerning the decision of the Central
government awarding Bharat Ratna awards. Almost every subject under the sun
which attracts her imagination becomes a subject matter of Public Interest
Litigation..
10. In order to save this Court from the tsunami of writ petitions filed by the
petitioner who appear almost every other day in Court touching matters which
hits the headline, treating it as public interest, we find it appropriate to
direct that henceforth the registry of the Court will not entertain any writ
petition in public interest from Dr Nutan Thakur - either in person or through
counsel (either as petitioner or co-petitioner) unless the petition, filed by
her, accompanies a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). At the
time of admission of the writ petition, if the Court considers that the
petitioner has raised a matter which is genuine and bona fide and in public
interest, the demand draft deposited by her may be returned to her. In case it
is found by the Court that the Writ Petition filed by her does not involve any
public interest and the writ petition is dismissed, the amount in the demand
draft deposited by her will be treated as costs imposed on her, and the amount
will be credited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee at
Lucknow to be spent for activities of the Legal Services Committee of the High
Court."
By the order of the Division Bench, the Court has directed that the Registry
shall not entertain any writ petition in public interest from Dr Nutan Thakur -
either in person or through counsel (either as petitioner or co-petitioner)
unless it is accompanied by a demand draft of Rs.25,000/. The Court also
clarified that at the time of admission of the petition, if the Court considers
that the petitioner has raised a grievance which is genuine and bona fide and
in public interest, the demand draft deposited may be returned but if it is
found that the writ petition does not involve any element of public interest
and is dismissed, the amount of the demand draft will be treated as costs and
will be credited to the account of the Legal Services Committee of the High
Court at Lucknow.
Subsequently, a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 6952 (M/B) of 2014) was filed
before this Court through an organization called the People's Forum of whom Dr
Nutan Thakur is described as convener. In the writ petition, as noted earlier,
the relief which was sought was a direction to entertain all PILs filed through
the People's Forum without insisting on compliance of the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court on 11 April 2014. By an order dated 1 August 2014,
the Division Bench observed that as a coordinate Bench, it would not be
appropriate for the Court to take a view contrary to that of a coordinate Bench
in the judgment dated 11 April 2014. However, a prima facie view was expressed
that Dr Nutan Thakur can appear on behalf of a society as its representative
and, hence, as an interim measure, permission was granted to appear on behalf
of the society, registered or unregistered, in this Court.
All the four writ petitions have been placed on the board. A preliminary
objection has been raised on behalf of the State to the maintainability of the
petitions on the ground that the purpose and object of filing petitions through
the organization called 'People's Forum' of which Dr Nutan Thakur is the
convener, is to circumvent compliance with the order passed by the Division
Bench on 11 April 2014. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned
Standing Counsel for the Union of India have extensively relied on the Deed of
Declaration constituting the People's Forum dated 3 August 2014 and it has been
urged that even a bare perusal of the Deed would indicate that the whole effort
is to obviate compliance of the order of the Division Bench dated 11 April
2014. It was urged that so long as the order passed by the Division Bench dated
11 April 2014 continues to hold the field, compliance cannot be allowed to be
circumvented in this manner.
On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
order dated 11 April 2014 requires interference and a petition for review has
been filed. Moreover, it has been submitted that there is no reason or
justification for the Court not to entertain a writ petition filed by People's
Forum through its convener Dr Nutan Thakur without complying with the mandate
of the order dated 11 April 2014.
At the outset, we must preface our consideration of the rival submissions with
the legal position that a judgment of a coordinate Bench continues to bind
unless it is set aside by the Supreme Court in appeal or is reviewed by that
Bench or, dissented from and overruled by a larger Bench of the Court. The
circumstances in which the Division Bench passed the order dated 11 April 2014
have been elaborately explained in the judgment from which we have extracted in
the earlier part of this order. The People's Forum, on whose behalf successive
writ petitions have been filed subsequent to the order of the Division Bench
dated 11 April 2014, is constituted purportedly under a Deed of Declaration of
a public charitable trust dated 3 August 2014. This deed has been settled on a
consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. The principal place of office of the trust is the
address of Dr Nutan Thakur, as stated in the affidavits which have been filed
in these proceedings. The deed of settlement, inter-alia, contains the
following provisions:
"C) One of the trustees shall be designated as the Managing
Trustee/Convener by all the Trustees through consensus, who shall be in charge
of the day to day affairs of the Trust and whose detailed role/responsibility
shall be defined and formulated by the Trustees through consensus. The Trustees
may rotate the post of Managing Trustee/Convener among themselves as per the
requirement of the Trust, in the larger interest of the Trust."
Ex facie, it is clear that this device of constituting a Deed of Declaration of
a public charitable trust was only to circumvent compliance with the order
passed by the Division Bench on 11 April 2014. The legality of that order
cannot be decided by a coordinate Bench. We are clearly of the view that when
an order has been passed by a coordinate Bench, to respond to a situation where
the litigative process of the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in
public interest is literally being highjacked by what the Division Bench
described as a 'tsunami of writ petitions' touching matters which hit the
headlines in the media, it is necessary for the High Court, as an institution,
to ensure that any effort deviously engineered to evade compliance of the order
of the Division Bench is put down with a firm hand. If the High Court were not
to do so, that will threaten the credibility of the institution and would lead
to forum-shopping which, to say the least, cannot be tolerated. So long as the
order passed by the Division Bench continues to hold the field, it must be
complied with. In fact, the filing of four successive petitions including a
writ petition which has been filed, as we have noted earlier, to forestall
appointments to the Supreme Court and to the High Courts pending the
constitutional process leading to the 121st Constitutional Amendment, is an
indicator of the nature and manner in which the process of the Court is being
utilised. When the time, attention and effort of the Court is consumed in an
avalanche of successive writ petitions including those ostensibly in public
interest but in reality to gain publicity, it is necessary for the litigant to
understand that the time of the Court has to be devoted for espousing genuine
causes. It is necessary to ensure that the jurisdiction in public interest is
exercised carefully and for the purpose of entertaining genuine causes. Access
to justice to citizens is a seminal constitutional precept. A fundamental right
of access to justice can be traced to several specific Articles of the
Constitution, particularly those in Part-III of the Constitution and is an
emanation from those constitutional provisions. The right of access to justice
has to be carefully safeguarded. But, at the same time, access to justice
cannot be used as a charter for abuse. When a citizen utilises the jurisdiction
of the High Court by tormenting the judicial process with repeated PILs,
motivated by a desire to seek publicity or to achieve extraneous purposes, it
is necessary for the Court to deal with these abuses. In doing so, the Court
protects its own institutional credibility as much as it protects the right of
access to justice to others. Time consumed in determining fruitless cases filed
only with a motivation to generate publicity or for oblique motives, deprives
the Court of valuable judicial time that should be spent in devoting attention
to the genuine problems of other citizens who wait in long queues for their
cases to be heard. Access to justice is not merely for a litigant who
approaches the Court in a PIL but a valuable right which is available to all
litigants. Where the process of the Court is found to have been abused, not
merely is the Court not powerless to handle such a situation but, in our view,
it is the constitutional duty of the High Court to ensure that the due process
is not deflected by an abuse of its process.
In the circumstances, and having duly considered the request of the petitioner
to entertain the aforesaid petitions, and the preliminary objection on behalf
of the State, we are of the view that the preliminary objection must be
sustained since the writ petitions have been presented without complying with
the judicial order of the Division Bench dated 11 April 2014.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
However, we leave it open to the petitioner to seek recourse to the
jurisdiction of this Court in public interest on the same writ petitions afresh
albeit after complying with the conditions imposed in the order dated 11 April
2014 in Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2014.
Order Date :- 21.8.2014
AHA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(Dr. D.K. Arora, J.)
