Supreme Court Dismisses PILs Against Jharkhand Chief Minister for Lack of Merit and Procedural Violations (07 November 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 07 November 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 546
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Can a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be entertained if the petitioner has not disclosed all relevant facts and has not approached the appropriate authorities first? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question while hearing appeals against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision to proceed with two PILs against the Chief Minister of Jharkhand. The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized the importance of a petitioner’s bona fides and adherence to procedural rules in PIL cases. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justice Dhulia authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed in the Jharkhand High Court by Shiv Shankar Sharma against the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren. The first PIL, filed in 2021, alleged that the Chief Minister and his family were involved in money laundering through shell companies and sought an investigation into these allegations. The second PIL, filed in 2022, alleged that the Chief Minister had misused his office by obtaining a mining lease in his own name and sought his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.

The Jharkhand High Court initially decided to proceed with both PILs, despite objections raised by the State of Jharkhand and the Chief Minister regarding their maintainability. The High Court held that the procedural irregularities should not impede the court from entertaining the petition due to the serious nature of the allegations. The State of Jharkhand then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Jharkhand High Court initially decided to proceed with the PILs, despite objections from the State of Jharkhand and the Chief Minister. The High Court reasoned that the serious nature of the allegations warranted consideration, even if there were procedural irregularities. The State of Jharkhand then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision to proceed with the matter. The Supreme Court, on May 24, 2022, directed the High Court to first determine the maintainability of the PILs before proceeding on the merits. Following this, the High Court then held that the PILs were maintainable, which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, particularly Rules 4, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6. These rules were framed following the Supreme Court’s directions in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., to ensure uniformity in entertaining PILs and to discourage those filed with oblique motives. The relevant rules are:

• Rule 4: Requires the petitioner to state the relief sought, grounds for the relief, and full details of the petitioner’s interest, credentials, and qualifications relevant to the PIL, along with a declaration of no personal interest.
• Rule 4A: Specifies requirements for PILs filed on behalf of a body of individuals, including details of the body and the petitioner’s authority to represent it.
• Rule 4B: Mandates that the PIL chronologically mention all prior efforts made to obtain the relief sought.
• Rule 5: Requires the court to verify the credentials of the petitioner and the correctness of the petition’s contents before entertaining it as a PIL.
• Rule 6: Allows relaxation of the above procedures for urgent cases, with reasons to be recorded.
• Rule 6A: The above procedure may be relaxed by the concerned Bench, for reasons to be recorded, in cases which call for such urgent intervention by the Court that it is not practicable to allow the delay which may be caused in following the above procedure.

The Supreme Court also referred to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, under which the Chief Minister was sought to be prosecuted in the second PIL. Additionally, Article 192 of the Constitution of India was cited, which deals with the process of disqualification of members of the State Legislature, and the role of the Election Commission of India in such matters.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellant (State of Jharkhand):

• The State argued that the PILs were not maintainable because they did not comply with the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, specifically Rules 4, 4A, 4B, and 5.
• The State contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, particularly the dismissal of a similar PIL in 2013 by the Jharkhand High Court, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
• The State submitted that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate authorities before filing the PILs, which is a fundamental requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus.
• The State argued that the allegations made in the PILs were vague, generalized, and unsubstantiated, lacking any prima facie evidence.

Submissions by the Respondents (Shiv Shankar Sharma):

• The respondent argued that the allegations in the PILs were of a serious nature, involving large-scale corruption by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.
• The respondent contended that the procedural irregularities in filing the PILs should not come in the way of the Court entertaining the petition, which was in the public interest.
• The respondent argued that the Rules relating to PILs were directory and not mandatory in nature, and therefore, non-compliance with these rules should not lead to the dismissal of the PILs.

Submissions by the Respondent (Chief Minister, Hemant Soren):

• The Chief Minister argued that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed material facts and had not approached the Court with clean hands.
• The Chief Minister submitted that the mining lease in question had already been surrendered, and therefore, the second PIL was without merit.
• The Chief Minister argued that the petitioner had a personal vendetta against him, as the petitioner’s father was a witness in a criminal case against the Chief Minister’s father.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitions filed before the Jharkhand High Court in the form of Public Interest Litigations are maintainable in view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court in several of its earlier decisions.
2. Whether these PILs comply with the provisions of the Rules relating to the Public Interest Litigations, which is the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, and if they do not, were the petitions filed as PILs liable to be dismissed at the very threshold if they were not in compliance with the provisions of the above Rules relating to PIL.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. [ (2010) 3 SCC 402 ]* to emphasize the need for High Courts to properly formulate rules for encouraging genuine PILs and discouraging those filed with oblique motives.
• The Court referred to M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. [ (1987) 1 SCC 395 ]* to highlight the original intent of PILs to provide a voice to the marginalized sections of society.
• The Court cited BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2002) 2 SCC 333 ]* and Neetu v. State of Punjab [ (2007) 10 SCC 614 ]* to underscore the need to discourage frivolous PILs and impose costs on petitioners who abuse the process.
• The Court followed Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim [ (2010) 4 SCC 513 ]* to reiterate that a constitutional court is not the appropriate forum to seek the initiation of an investigation.
• The Court relied on Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors. [ AIR 2004 SC 280 ]* to emphasize the importance of the credentials of a PIL petitioner and the need for petitioners to approach the court with clean hands, a clean heart, and a clean objective.
• The Court referred to Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra [ (2007) 14 SCC 281 ]* and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 ]* to highlight the abuse of PILs and the need to protect the judicial system from frivolous and vexatious petitions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the petitioner’s failure to adhere to the procedural requirements for filing a PIL, as well as the suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized that the bona fides of the petitioner are of paramount importance in PIL cases, and that the court cannot entertain petitions that are based on vague allegations and are not substantiated by any concrete evidence. The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate statutory authorities before filing the PILs, which is a fundamental requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus. The Court was also influenced by the fact that a similar PIL had been dismissed in the past, and that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed this fact from the court.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles and procedural rules governing PILs. The Court emphasized that PILs should not be used for personal vendettas or to make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals, especially those holding high public office. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate authorities before filing the PILs, which is a fundamental requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus. The Court’s decision reflects a strong emphasis on the need for PILs to be filed with genuine public interest and not for personal or political motives.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that the procedural irregularities should be overlooked due to the serious nature of the allegations. The Court emphasized that the rules governing PILs were framed to prevent abuse of the process, and that these rules must be strictly followed. The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner had not approached the appropriate authorities before filing the PILs, which is a fundamental requirement for seeking a writ of mandamus. The Court’s decision reflects a strong emphasis on the need for PILs to be filed with genuine public interest and not for personal or political motives.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors., stating: “A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.” The Court also quoted from Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, stating: “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.” Additionally, the Court quoted from its own judgment in Balwant Singh Chaufal, stating: “Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future PIL cases. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that PILs are filed with genuine public interest, and not for personal or political motives. The decision is also a reminder that courts should not entertain PILs that are based on vague allegations and are not substantiated by any concrete evidence. The judgment also highlights the need for petitioners to approach the appropriate statutory authorities before filing a PIL, and to disclose all relevant facts to the court.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reinforces the existing principles governing PILs. The Court’s decision is based on the existing legal framework and the previous decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court’s analysis of the arguments for and against the maintainability of the PILs is based on a thorough examination of the facts and the applicable legal principles. The Court’s decision is a clear rejection of the argument that the seriousness of the allegations can override the need for compliance with procedural rules and the requirement for a petitioner to approach the court with clean hands.

Key Takeaways

• PILs must strictly adhere to procedural rules, including disclosure of all relevant facts and previous attempts to seek relief.
• Petitioners must approach the appropriate statutory authorities before filing a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus.
• Courts must verify the credentials of the petitioner and the correctness of the information provided.
• PILs should not be used for personal vendettas, political motives, or to make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals.
• Courts should discourage frivolous PILs and impose costs on petitioners who abuse the process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Jharkhand High Court dated 03.06.2022 in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 and W.P. No. (PIL) 727 of 2022, effectively dismissing the PILs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Public Interest Litigations must adhere to the procedural rules and the petitioner must have a bonafide intention and must approach the court with clean hands. This case reinforces the previous position of law that PILs should not be used for personal vendettas, political motives, or to make unsubstantiated allegations against individuals. It also emphasizes the need for petitioners to approach the appropriate statutory authorities before filing a PIL.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Jharkhand and set aside the order of the Jharkhand High Court, dismissing the PILs. The Supreme Court held that the PILs were not maintainable due to non-compliance with procedural rules, suppression of material facts, and lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that PILs should be used for genuine public interest and not for personal or political motives.