Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea To Suspend State's Top Officials For 'Undue Influence', Says Aimless Allegations Without Supporting Material

The Kerala High Court on Monday came down heavily upon the practice of filing writ petitions without any basis and thereby 'threatening the system into ridicule'. 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while dismissing a plea alleging State's Top officials of influencing others to destroy petitioner's life, imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. 

"Access to justice, though a fundamental right, cannot be extended to a right to prefer misconceived and frivolous petitions. The nature of reliefs claimed for and the nebulous pleadings are indicative of absence of any particular right of the petitioner having been infringed," the Court observed while dismissing the petition. 

It was the petitioner's case that the respondent public servants including the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Additional Director Generals of Police and various Police Officers of different ranks, had been trying to deceive the Court and destroy his life.

He alleged that his signature had been forged in some government security documents, and were also trying to influence others and destroy the course of justice. The petitioner also averred that the Government Pleaders were arguing for the accused and pointing out defects. The petitioner thus sought that the public servants ought to be suspended by the Union and State Government.

The petitioner also prayed the Court to issue a direction to the Registrar of the High Court not to intervene in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and to register the writ petitions based on their merits without being influenced by the nomenclature or the prayers.

The Court in this case noted that the petitioner had not indicated that any specific act had been done by the respondents for seeking the issuance of directions to suspend them. The Court discerned that the pleadings in the petition were vague, and insufficient to grant any of the reliefs sought for. The Court was of the staunch opinion that despite the "wanton allegations" against the respondents, no material had been produced to justify the same. The Court further took note that the Magistrate had also dismissed the complaint by the petitioner earlier. 

As far as the second relief sought by the petitioner was concerned, he had alleged that the Registry had noted certain defects in his petition, and contended that such noting of defects affected his rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

"This Court is unable to comprehend how the defects noted by the Registry of this Court in the writ petitions filed can be attributed with allegations of violating fundamental rights. One of the functions bestowed upon the Registry is to scrutinize the petitions filed before the Court. Rule 15 and Rule 50 of the Kerala High Court Rules 1971 confer power upon the Registry to notice defects if any, in the petitions or applications filed before the Court," the Court observed. 

The Court further observed that the instant case did not indicate that any right of the petitioner had been infringed. 

"Apart from the above, in the absence of violation of any specific right, a person cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The nature of pleadings and the reliefs claimed for reveals that the writ petition is filed on an experimental basis and in bad taste. The manner in which the petitioner has raised his pleadings in the writ petition and the nature of reliefs sought compels this Court to visit the petitioner with costs as a disincentive for indulging in such frivolous writ petitions," the Court declared. 

It is on these grounds that the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to pay the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. The Court clarified that KeLSA would be authorized to initiate legal proceedings if the same was not paid by the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order. 

The petitioner appeared as the party-in-person. Deputy Solicitor General of India S. Manu and Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Asif Azad v. Union of India & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 172

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment