Delhi HC refuses to entertain PIL by petitioner who was blacklisted by Supreme Court

In a bid to avoid “judicial misadventurism“, the Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a petitioner blacklisted by the Supreme Court from filing any matter in “public interest“.

“We cannot…entertain the petitioner, where the Supreme Court has shut its doors to him, for all times to come. This, in our view, would fly directly in the face of Article 144 of the Constitution of India, and would amount to judicial misadventurism, on our part“, the Court said.

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar in a writ petition by an organisation, Suraz India Trust, through its Chairman Rajiv Daiya.

The petition, which was “purportedly filed in public interest“, sought to secure the right of the people who seek legal recourse on being injured/victimized as a result of a breach of laws etc. It also challenged the validity of Sections 47, 128, 195, 340, 301(1) and 302(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The writ petition was initially filed before the Supreme Court. However, the petitioner had to move to the High Court after the Apex Court opined that the subject matter of the petition could be dealt by the High Court.

The Union of India (respondent in the case) had argued that the writ petition should not to be entertained in view of an order passed by the Supreme Court in one of the petitions by the petitioner. This petition, before the Supreme Court, challenged the constitutional validity of the Judges (Enquiry) Act, 1968.

The High Court was informed that in its order, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner was an “inveterate litigant” which had filed as many as 64 different proceedings before the Court, without being successful in any of them.

The Supreme Court had noted that when the petitioner did not get the orders that it hoped for, it “pointedly expressed its anger, towards all and sundry…and even by the name” and “took its grievance to the highest executive functionaries in this country“.

It was recorded the petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, cast “serious aspersions” against three judges of the Rajasthan High Court besides its Chief Justice. It had also expressed its ire against three judges of the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court was thus of the opinion that the petitioner was “seriously remiss in his judicial interventions“.

By the same order, the Supreme Court absolutely restrained the petitioner as well as its Chairman from filing any cause in public interest, before any court in this country. It also imposed costs of Rs 25 lakh for wasting the Court’s judicial time.

When the High Court enquired whether the organization had complied with the direction to pay the costs, its Chairman Rajiv Daiya contended that the order had not yet attained finality as he had preferred petitions before the President of India.

He also “cautioned” the Court that any questions put to him in this regard would be “criminally contemptuous” as it would amount to interference with the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

In response, the Court recorded,

“Our research, however, reveals that this is not the position and that, in fact, MA 507/2017, which was referred, by the petitioner, seeking modification of the judgement of the Supreme Court, was dismissed by order dated 5th December 2017, and, subsequently, on 8th February, 2018, the Supreme Court, noting the fact that the costs of ₹ 25 lakhs, as directed by it, had not been deposited by the petitioner, despite repeated orders, has gone to the extent of directing its Registry not to accept any application or petition on behalf of the petitioner, or Mr. Rajeev Daiya.”

The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner placed on record all other orders passed by the Supreme Court except for the above order and even chose to conceal it even during the course of submissions.

Coming to the present petition, it was observed that although the Supreme Court had allowed the petitioner to move this Court for ventilation of his rights, the petitioner’s claim that his legal rights were violated, was false.

“We have gone through the present writ petition, and do not find even the whisper of an averment, let alone allegation, regarding violation of any of the rights of the petitioner, fundamental or otherwise. The writ petition is founded entirely on hypotheses, assumptions and presumptions, regarding perceived inaction, on the part of the executive, in coming to the aid of persons – not one of whom has either been identified or named – who suffer legal wrongs. The challenge, to the various provisions of the Cr.P.C., of which the writ petition seeks quashing, is also founded on hypothetical averments, without a single concrete instance being highlighted in the entire writ petition.”

The Court thus concluded that it would not entertain a public interest litigation at the instance of the litigant who was in contempt of the Supreme Court and was wilfully defying orders with total impunity.

“It is not possible, or proper, for us, to provide an audience to the petitioner, once the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of directing the Registry not to entertain any petition, either by the petitioner or by Mr. Daiya. Article 144 of the Constitution of India requires all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India, to act in aid of the Supreme Court.”

In view of the above, the writ petition was dismissed.

Read the Order: