C S RATHOUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is stated to have been filed in public interest with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner, who has appeared in person, stated that the scheduled visit of the President of Pakistan would lead to breach of sovereignty of the country and as issues regarding Kashmir are involved, this Court should direct the Union of India to cancel/withdraw/defer its decisions dated 23/05/2001 regarding invitation to Pakistan Chief Executive General Parvez Musharraf, now the President of Pakistan for visiting India and the subsequent invitation letter dated 25/05/2001 sent by the Prime Minister of the country. When asked as to under what jurisdiction this Court will deal with the prayers made in the petition, the petitioner stated that in order to protect the integrity of the country it is the duty of the Court to accept the prayers and issue necessary directions. It is also submitted that it is the duly of the Court to see that policy decisions are taken by the Government in line with the will of the people and, therefore, the proposed visit of the President of Pakistan should be stayed for integrity and unity of the country.

(3.) We are of the view that the petition which is styled as public interest is not really one filed in public interest and is thoroughly misconceived. Petitioner could not show as to how this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the prayers made. Except vague assertions, nothing to substance is there in the petition. Though it is accepted that the impugned decisions are policy decisions, it is submitted that we can even interfere with them in view of the political background involved. Public interest litigation, which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be 'publicity interest litigation' or private Interest litigation' or 'politics interest litigation'. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and il cannot be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their-personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity or to get publicity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of pubic interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provision. But no one should be allowed to use it for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 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 and/or publicity 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 attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the' applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness of nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests ; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (2) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such cases, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with impostors and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holymen. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty envasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where it is necessary for the sake of justice and re.fuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public, good. We have made similar observations in the case of Delhi Municipal Workers Union (Regd) v. MCD and Anr:, AIR 2001 Delhi 68.