Allahabad HC fortifies itself against writ petition “tsunami” of Dr. Nutan Thakur; Directs 25k deposit for every fresh PIL

In an unusual order dated April 11, 2014 the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has come down strongly on activist Nutan Thakur, finding her guilty of filing a PIL with the “oblique purpose” of “seeking publicity”. .But the Court did not stop at this finding alone, it went on to not only impose costs of twenty-five thousand for the petition but also mandated a deposit of rupees twenty-five thousand before filing any future public interest litigations. .The High Court was hearing a petition filed by Thakur challenging the validity of the Special Protection Group Act of 1988 on the grounds that the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was Thakur’s contention that this protection ought to be given on the basis of actual threat perception..After dismissing this contention as frivolous and also observing that the Act provides for a periodical review, the Bench turned their attention to Dr. Nutan Thakur. The Bench of Justices Sunil Ambwani and DK Upadhyaya made no effort to mask their opinion of the various PILs that Thakur has filed over the past few years. As noted in the order, Thakur has filed a hundred and forty PILs before the Allahabad High Court wherein she is the petitioner-in-person. On the merits of these petitions, the Court held that,.“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.”.In 2012, Thakur’s daughter, Tanaya, had also filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking the quashing of the Common Law Admission Test with the High Court issuing notice but not passing any interim orders..Interestingly, the High Court has also criticized it’s own judges, saying that some of the petitions have received the “tacit encouragement” of the High Court itself. However, the order does not examine this encouragement in greater detail..Quoting extensively from a 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Balwant Singh Chaufal case, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of twenty-five thousand rupees. In addition, Thakur has to now deposit a demand draft of twenty-five thousand rupees while filing a PIL, an amount that would be refunded if the Court found merit in the case. However, if the petition was found to be devoid of merit or,.“[D]oes 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”.Speaking to Bar & Bench, Thakur has said that she will be filing a review of the order very soon and if that is not allowed, an appeal will be filed. On filing PILs for publicity’s sake, Thakur says that that is simply not the case..“I don’t ask anyone to publish [articles on] my petitions. It is the media that decides what is appropriate to publish. I have not committed any crime in filing PILs yet that is how I am being treated. Worse, this order will now have an impact on the other [139] petitions. ”.While the review petition is yet to be filed, it is unlikely to be allowed although it will be interesting to see how the appeal pans out. Thakur is not the first individual accused of filing baseless petitions and is unlikely to be the last. Recently, the Supreme Court chastised ML Sharma for needlessly approaching the court. See this tweet for example, .Having said that though, Thakur’s case case may well set a precedent for dealing with public interest litigations..And moving away from the specifics of this case, the order also raises several significant issues including distinguishing frivolous from non-frivolous litigation, the administrative powers of a High Court Bench vis-à-vis the High Court Registry, and even the role of the judiciary in encouraging frivolous litigation, something that is merely hinted at in the order. For now though, Thakur is ready to file a review, followed by an appeal. And if she decides to file a separate petition altogether, it would be number one hundred and forty-one.