Rajendra Prasad v. Director, Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of Kerala; State of Kerala; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 8097 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAJENDRA PRASAD** **AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE A.SUKUMARAN, PRESIDENT OF THAMPU,(NATIONAL TRUST FOR TRIBAL EDUCATION, DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH)HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHATHA TEMPLE ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI-17.** ## **BY ADV SMT.SANDHYA RAJU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM,PIN-695001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,GROUND FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, ADDL.CHARGE MISSION DIRECTOR(NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL,JUNCTION,TRIVANDRUM-695035.** ## **SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 2 ## J U D G M E N T Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2021 ## S. Manikumar, CJ. Contending, inter alia, that due to poverty, several tribal communities in the State could not have access to educational institutions, and further that the Government have not created neighbourhood schools, in the vicinity of tribal hamlets, the petitioner has submitted that Right to Education guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed. Placing reliance on certain newspaper reports, instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to immediately create neighbourbood schools in the vicinity of tribal hamlets. (ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the creation of a Monitoring Committee including the Tribal civil society groups in conducting a social audit all over the State.” 2. Inviting the attention of this Court to Exhibits-P1, P3 and P4 newspaper reports, Mr. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that instant writ petition has been filed purely on the basis of newspaper reports. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P(C). No.11394 of 2020 dated 11.6.2020, he also submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable. _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 3 3. Be that as it may, learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the issue as to whether, children residing in remote Tribal areas are provided with education and access to education, was considered by this Court and by judgment dated 18.06.2020 in W.P(C). No.10986 of 2020, has already issued directions, and that there is no need to issue further directions. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader, except Exhibits-P1, P3, P4 newspaper reports, no other supporting documents are filed to maintain the writ petition. A Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable on the basis of newspaper reports. Reference can be made to few decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court : (i) On the aspect of a Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper report, in Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22[nd] respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 4 the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation. 5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally." (ii) In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, held as under: "5. The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or 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 (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, 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 imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 5 impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. ## 6. ..... 7. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, High Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 6 with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. ## 8. ...... 9. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and substantial rights and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of tax cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, in the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no real public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 7 of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions of luxury litigants who have nothing to loose but trying to gain for nothing and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants. 10. 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 armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs." _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 8 (iii) In Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister. 2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 9 conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2-2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner." 6. De hors the above, as rightly pointed out, considering the grievance expressed by Tribal Community and children, on various issues, this Court, by judgment dated 18.6.2020 in W.P(C). No.10986 of 2020, has issued certain directions. The said directions would cover the instant writ petition as well. 7. Though in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment, we observed that writ petition is not maintainable on the basis of newspaper reports, on the prayer for directing the respondents to create a _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 10 Monitoring Committee, including the Tribal civil society groups, in conducting a social audit all over the State, we are of the view that if there is no monitoring mechanism, it would be desirable that the Government would explore the possibility of creating a Monitoring Committee at various levels viz., State, District and Taluk levels, so that such committees, if constituted, with guidelines framed would monitor the developmental activities of the Government at various levels, vindicate the grievances of the tribal community and that the State Government can conduct social audit, on all activities and welfare measures taken by the Government, so that the steps taken are properly and effectively implemented. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/- Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou. _**W.P.(C).8097/2016**_ 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER's EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT** **EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF AN EXTRACT OF THE RECOMMENDATION FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENTS** **EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT** **EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT REGARDING CLOSURE OF SCHOOLS.** // True copy//