Such Pleas Pose Grave Danger To Credibility Of Judicial Process: Kerala HC Dismisses With Cost PIL By Lawyer Against Fund Collection By Private Organisations For Wayanad Landslide Victims
|The Kerala High Court has dismissed with cost, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a Lawyer challenging the parallel fund collection by private organisations for the victims of Wayanad Landslide.
The Court said that such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. elucidated, “There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. This has the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law. This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores.”
The Bench added that business rivalries must be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services and political rivalries must be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office.
Advocate Abdul Raoof Pallipath appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Government Pleader V. Tekchand appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the writ petition was filed by Advocate C. Shukkur, who claimed to be a public-spirited citizen, seeking a direction to the respondents (authorities), who include the Director General of Police and the District Collector of Wayanad, to take appropriate measures to deal with funds allegedly collected by various organisations for the victims of the devastating landslide that occurred in Wayanad District few days back. The allegation in the writ petition was that the funds are being collected by various social, political, and religious organisations and canvassing done with the general public by asking them to contribute generously to specified bank accounts or 'apps' created for the purpose.
The case of the petitioner was that the parallel fund collection is being pursued by the various organisations notwithstanding the steps taken by the State Government to mobilize funds from various quarters. He suggested that the best remedy is to have a centralized system of collecting funds and utilising the same for rebuilding the infrastructure and towards that end, the collection drives organised by various organisations should be restricted/prohibited.
The High Court in view of the above submissions observed, “There is nothing to suggest that any of the funds collected pursuant to those advertisements have not reached the intended beneficiaries. More importantly, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had approached the Police or the District Administration with any representation or complaint pointing out any alleged misuse of funds by the persons allegedly collecting these funds.”
The Court said that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not one that can be misused by persons who appear to be acting for no other reason than for obtaining cheap publicity.
“As observed by the Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and Another – [(2018) 6 SCC 72], the misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved. Those who await trial or the resolution of appeals against orders of conviction have a legitimate expectation of early justice”, it noted.
The Court further said that it is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business, or political agenda which has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation.
“Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law. There is a danger that the judicial process will be reduced to a charade, if disputes beyond the ken of legal parameters occupy the judicial space. … In the instant case, we find the writ petition to be pathetically devoid of any substance much less any material that would point to a matter of public interest”, it also emphasised.
The Court noted that the averments in the writ petition effectively question the intelligence and prudence of the common man by assuming that the general public of the State are persons, who have lost the ability to think before they act. It said that the petitioner ought to remind himself that he purportedly represents the people who hail from the most literate State in the country.
“On our part, we may remind ourselves of the observations of the Supreme Court in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. - [JT 2024 (1) SC 194] that petitions that lack adequate research and rely on unverified and unrelated material tend to be counterproductive. This word of caution must be kept in mind by lawyers and member of civil society alike”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner to be paid within two weeks that can be utilised for the benefit of the landslide victims.
Cause Title- C. Shukkur v. The State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:61038)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Abdul Raoof Pallipath, E. Mohammed Shafi, Prajit Ratnakaran, and Sithara Raheem V.K.
Respondents: GP V. Tekchand