Kerala High Court Slaps 25K On PIL Litigant For 'Suppressing Personal Interest', Says Parties' Credentials Must Be Disclosed At Threshold

The Kerala High Court imposed Rs. 25,000 fine on a public interest litigant who suppressed his "personal interest" in the matter and did not disclose proper credentials which amounts to abuse of law. In doing so the court emphasized that there is a need to disclose the full credentials of petitioners in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by way of detailed affidavits at the threshold, to avoid misuse of the jurisdiction. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 regulate the filing of Public Interest Litigations and Supreme Court has emphasised that petitions filed for ulterior motives have to be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. However, in practice, often, the petitioners merely recite the language of the Rule and state in one line that they have no personal interest. It is only when the respondents point out personal interests do the Court dismiss the petition. The Court opined that this practice needs to be changed."In practice, however, it is noticed, as in the present case, that petitioners often merely recite the language of the Rule in their affidavits by stating in one line that they have no personal interest...Also, many PILs filed to address social issues contain no particulars, offering no substantial assistance to the Court. Petitions are often filed on complex technical matters where the petitioners have no expertise. Such poorly presented petitions are detrimental to the very cause they seek to espouse. Judicial time is not infinite and cannot be squandered by such petitions. In our view, the present Rules of 1971 may require a mandate to elaborate on the disclosures to be made in the affidavit accompanying a PIL from which the status of the public interest litigant can be ascertained at the threshold. In the case at hand, the Petitioner has abused the process of law and has suppressed his personal interest in the matter."The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a person alleging to have no personal interest in the case and seeking action against two respondent parties–Respondents 6 and 7, seeking action against them for filing up a property which the petitioner alleged was a "wetland". However, respondent 7 filed an affidavit raising a serious grievance that the Petitioner has a personal grudge against Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which the petitioner "masquerades as public interest". The respondent parties alleged that the Petitioner is a real estate broker who brokered the sale of the same property by Respondent No. 6 to Respondent No. 7. It was alleged that the petitioner received Rs. 50,000 from Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 also paid him 15,000/-. The Petitioner started demanding more money from Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, and since they refused, he resorted to this PIL. After verifying the information, the Court said:"We have examined the record, including the documentary evidence regarding the transfer of money to the Petitioner placed on record by Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was a broker between Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for the transaction and has received remuneration for the sale of the same property". The high court dismissed the plea and imposed ₹25,000 cost on the petitioner to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund under the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within eight weeks.Case No: W.P.(C) No. 28667 of 2024Case Title: Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523Counsel for the petitioner: Sreekanth S. Nair, Sandeep P. JohnsonCounsel for the respondents: S. Renjith - Spl. GP, B. Pramod, K.P. Jayachandran - Addl. Advocate General, Athul M.V., Ajay S. KoshyClick to Read/Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Slaps 25K On PIL Litigant For 'Suppressing Personal Interest', Says Parties' Credentials Must Be Disclosed At Threshold

K. Salma Jennath

Tags