'Jao Ludhiana Aur Sweater Becho': Supreme Court Rebukes 12th-Pass Trader Who Failed To Explain Terms Used In His PIL

The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed dramatic scenes when a petitioner-in-person, who has studied till 12th standard, appeared with a Public Interest Litigation containing high-sounding legal jargon.

The Court suspected that the petitioner, a cloth trader from Ludhiana, was a proxy for someone else. The petition, in relation to PM Cares Fund, was before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan.

At the outset, the CJI inquired of the petitioner what his qualifications were and what he did for a living.

The petitioner responded that he was a 12th Pass and was a trader in hosiery goods.

The CJI then asked how much tax he was paying in ITRs. The petitioner answered that it was around 5.25 lakhs for the last year.

When the petitioner clarified that he had never filed any plea before any High Court before and this was his first time filing in the Supreme Court directly, the CJI remarked, "bada bahaduri ka kaam kiya, seedha Ludhiana se chalke aagaye!" (Very brave of you, you have come directly from Ludhiana)

Doubting whether the petition was actually drafted by the petitioner, the CJI said, "Main apka ek exam karwaunga yaha, agar apka usme 30% bhi aagaya toh main maanlunga ki petition aapne banaayi hai"

( I will ask you to take a specific exam for English. If you manage to score even 30% in that, I will believe that this plea is drafted by you.)

The CJI asked him to honestly tell who drafted the petition, else his ITR details will need to be attached.

The petitioner insisted on his stand and said, "Sir, you can check my phone."

He added that initially, he got the plea drafted in September from a typist named Mr Das.

The CJI warned that if he did not disclose who drafted the plea, the bench would give a direction to the Punjab Vigilance Bureau. The petitioner answered that he did not take advice from any lawyer, "I do not have faith in any advocate, though there are a few good friends of mine."

The CJI asked what was the meaning of the words "Fiduciary Risk of Corporate Donors" used in the petition.

The petitioner was, however, unable to answer the question. When he started making other submissions, the CJI interjected, "Sidhu sahab yeh toh aapne kagaz pe likh rakha hai, kisi vakil ne apko likh ke diya hai."

(Mr Sidhu, this is written and given to you by some advocate)

On the last warning, the petitioner said that he only drafted the petition with the help of 3-4 AI Tools; he drafted it himself, as he didn't have the money to hire a lawyer. He said, "Jo typist hai, unko 4 jackets gift kari thi, bohot ache hai woh, 1 ghante ka 1 hazaar mang rahe the"

(The typist was really helpful, I only gifted him 4 jackets as I didn't have money, he asked for Rs. 1000 for 1 Hour of work.)

The CJI asked the typist (Mr Das) to appear before the bench. The bench proceeded to dismiss the petition, warning the petitioner not to file such frivolous pleas, as it may invite a probe against him.

In the order, the bench observed :

"The petitioner has filed the petition without any sense of responsibility, has indulged in making vague, wild, frivolous and scandalous allegations. On repeated inquiry, we found that the petitioner is a small trader with a qualification of 10+2 from a school in Ludhiana. The tone and manner, expressions, terminology and the so-called 'constitutional principle' cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner.

However, we do not deem it necessary to hold a roving inquiry and find out the person behind filing this petition; suffice it, it would be appropriate to dismiss it at this stage, with a warning to the petitioner not to indulge in this kind of frivolous case."

The CJI, while dismissing, also remarked, "Jaao Ludhiana mein 2-3 aur sweater becho, jin logo ka kaam hai aisi petition file karna, woh nuksaan kardengay aur apka, costs lagwa ke."

(Return to your business in Ludhiana. If you continue filing such petitions through others, they will end up having costs imposed upon you.)

Case Details : RAJNISH SIDHU Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(Crl.) No. 46/2026