Non-Disclosure Of Pending Criminal Case While Filing PIL Shows Lack Of Good Faith, Later Acquittal Irrelevant: Jharkhand HC Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost

The Jharkhand High Court has recently observed that not disclosing a pending criminal case while filing a PIL, even if the petitioner was later acquitted, shows lack of good faith.

A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice T.S. Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging irregularities and illegalities in the allocation and utilization of development funds. The Court held:

“39. Evidently, even though the petitioner has claimed to have filed this petition in public interest, but he has not disclosed and has rather deliberately withheld his complete credentials and interest as is mandatorily required under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. The petitioner was required to disclose the criminal case that was admittedly pending against him at the time of filing of the petition. The mere fact that he has been acquitted later on is of no consequence.”

Background:

The allegations were made against multiple respondents, including MLA Mr. Ramchandra Chandravanshi of the Bishrampur Constituency, claiming that MLA funds were being used for illegal purposes and in violation of the guidelines governing the disbursement of MLA funds.

At the outset, the High Court observed that a PIL can only be entertained when the petitioner satisfies the Court about their bona fides, and that it cannot be used as a tool for personal vendetta. The Court noted:

“20. 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 public interest seeking is not lurking…”

The High Court, after referring to multiple judgments of the Supreme Court, observed the growing misuse of Public Interest Litigations. It held:

“33. It would thus be clear that Public Interest Litigation can only be entertained at the instance of a bonafide litigant and cannot be used by unscrupulous litigants to disguise personal or individual grievance as a Public Interest Litigation. The instant petition fails to qualify the above parameters.”

Eventually, the Court rejected the PIL by relying on the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, holding that the petitioner had deliberately withheld his credentials and failed to disclose the criminal case pending against him at the time of filing the petition. The Court further noted that the petitioner was a political rival and that the petition was not bona fide, amounting to an abuse of the process of law. The Court castigated the petitioner in sharp words and held:

“41. This Court in such circumstances has to act ruthlessly while dealing with such imposters, busybodies and meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. The petitioner cannot masquerade as a crusader of justice and is only pretending to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though he has no interest of the public to protect. The instant petition under ploy to achieve for achieving oblique motives.”

To curb such cases, the High Court issued comprehensive directions outlining when a PIL may be entertained by the Court. It held that PILs shall be maintainable only when:

(i) The impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right, and relief is sought for its enforcement;

(ii) The action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects a group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interests on account of poverty, incapacity, or ignorance;

(iii) The person or group of persons is approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or violation of some provision of constitutional law;

(iv) That such person or group of persons is not a busybody or a meddlesome interloper and has not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating personal vengeance or grievance;

(v) That the process of public interest litigation is not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or unrelated objectives. Every default on the part of the State or public authority being not justiciable in such litigation;

(vi) That the litigation initiated in public interest is such that, if not remedied or prevented, would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set-up of the country;

(vii) That the State action is not being covered under the carpet or intended to be thrown out on technicalities;

(viii) Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received, but only upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court is of such a nature as to require examination;

(ix) That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart, and clean objectives;

(x) That before taking any action in public interest, the Court must be satisfied that its forum is not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politician, busybody, or person or group with mala fide objectives, whether for vindication of personal grievances, blackmail, or considerations extraneous to public interest.

The Court dismissed the PIL and also imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on the petitioner, directing that Rs. 1 lakh be paid to Mr. Chandravanshi and the remaining Rs. 1 lakh to the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund.

Appearance: Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, and Ms. Priya Sahay appeared for the Respondents.

Case Title: Binod Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand and Others

Case No. W.P. (PIL) No. 3634 of 2024

Appearance: Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh appeared for the Petitioner, while Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, and Ms. Priya Sahay appeared for the Respondents.

Case Title: Binod Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand and Others W.P. (PIL) No. 3634 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order