Offices Held By Constitutional Functionaries Not Open To Denigration By 'Self-Styled' Warriors Of Public Interest: Delhi HC On PIL Challenging CJI Appointment

Dismissing a PIL challenging the appointment of newly sworn-in Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the Delhi High Court has observed that the offices held by constitutional functionaries are not open to denigration by "self-styled warriors of public interest" on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact.

Calling the plea challenging Justice Chandrachud's appointment a classic case of 'wishful thinking', a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said:

"Whereas wishful thinking, in particular, is not a prohibited activity, but when it forms part of the grounds of a petition before the court, it amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and any such attempt must be repelled in a manner that it sends a tenacious message."

The court added:

"The message must be clear that the offices held by the constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration, that too in a court of law, by self-styled warriors of public interest on the basis of superficial allegations, having no basis in law or fact."

While the plea was dismissed on November 11, the detailed order has been uploaded today.

Observing that Article 124 was complied with in the matter of appointment of the new CJI, the bench said that apex court has noted it has now become a fashion to approach court by making "scandalous allegations against the Judges."

"In light of the aforesaid, the instant PIL not only deserves to be dismissed but also deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Let costs of Rs.1,00,000/- be deposited with the "Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund‟ within 30 days from today," said the court, while dismissing the petition.

Tiwari in the PIL had argued that the appointment of Justice Chandrachud was made in violation of the provisions of the constitution. He had prayed for an immediate stay on Justice Chandrachud's appointment.

Observing that the PIL was filed only to gain publicity without there being any material to support the averments, the bench termed it as a fit case to be "crushed at the threshold" in the strongest terms.

"The prayers urged in this petition are not only against the genesis of a social interest litigation, but also revolt against the dignity of the constitutional office," the court said.

The court also noted that various scandalous allegations have been made in the PIL against the former Chief Justices of India without there being any material to support the same.

"It is unfortunate that allegations have been made against other high dignitaries, including the Union Law Minister. The instant Petition appears to be more of a publicity oriented litigation instead of a public interest litigation," the court said.

The court said that the noble intentions that liberalized the rule of locus standi and permitted public spirited citizens to approach the constitutional courts are confronted with a "sad reality in litigations "like the present one."

What is recognized in a court of law is a 'cause of action' and not an action without a cause, the court said.

It added: "It is now being increasingly noticed that Public Interest Litigation is being abused by Publicity mongers who institute Public Interest Litigation only to gain cheap popularity. Many times the petitions are filed even as a tool to blackmail people."

Tiwari, who called himself "a well-trained intelligent common citizen of the nation of India", in the PIL had said that an inquiry should be conducted by the security agencies against the new CJI to ascertain he "does not have any kind of relation with the anti-nationals and Naxalite Christian terrorists".

He had also claimed that Justice Chandrachud "will be aware in destroying the traitors who are plotting to assassinate the Prime Minister." The PIL also said lawyers like Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising want the Chief Justice to be "their accomplice".

Title: SANJEEV KUMAR TIWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1071

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment