A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Trilok Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a retired professor of journalism from Himachal Pradesh University and the chairman of Umang Foundation, terming it a “mischievous” and “publicity-seeking litigation” and ordered him to pay damages of Rs 50,000 to the people posted at a juvenile care centre in Hira Nagar in Shimla for filing a “frivolous” complaint, alleging inmates were tortured.
“It is more than settled that the public interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and circumspection, and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest or public interest seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens,” the court observed.
Based on information provided over the telephone by an inmate, released on bail, and his father, petitioner Ajai Srivastava, a resident of Doctors Colony at Lower Panthaghati in Shimla, alleged beating, torture and misbehaviour at an observation home.
The court, however, noted the petitioner “failed to verify the accuracy of these claims or conduct before addressing a letter to the Chief Justice on May 13, 2024”.
The court further noted the petitioner was informed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) office in Solan that the inmate of the juvenile home had already lodged a complaint (in this connection). “Despite this, the petitioner chose to bypass the due process and prematurely brought the matter before the court, less than a week after the complaint was filed,” the bench said.
The order reads: “Once the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the complaint had been lodged, then the least that was expected of him was to have at least waited for a reasonable time about the outcome of the said complaint rather than addressing a letter to the Chief Justice on May 13, less than one week from the complaint had been made.”
“The petitioner being a retired professor was not expected to succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. For, it is settled that even a good cause can be lost if the petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research as this could seriously affect third party rights lying in the instant case,” the order further reads.
Appreciating the petitioner’s past contributions to public interest causes, the division bench said, “Such acknowledgement did not grant him the liberty to act irresponsibly.”
The court said the petitioner “failed to wait for the JJB’s decision and instead filed an unsubstantiated and reckless petition. The petition caused undue harm to respondents with one of the respondents losing his job and others suffering reputational damage”.
Thus, dismissing the petition, the bench ordered the petitioner to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the respondents within two weeks.
The court also directed the official respondents to maintain the status quo as it existed before the letter dated May 13, 2024, ensuring all consequential benefits to respondents.
The bench sternly warned the petitioner against engaging in such “publicity-seeking litigation” in the future, stating, “PIL should be used judiciously and not as a tool for personal or vested interests.”
The matter has been listed for compliance on January 6, 2025.
When contacted, Srivastava said, “We can approach the Supreme Court. I will file an appeal. Earlier, at least five of my PILs were accepted in the honourable high court.”
