Frivolous PILs Deflect Attention Of Court From Serious Matters: SC Imposes ₹ 5 Lakh Cost While Dismissing Advocate's Plea Against Oath Taken By Bombay High Court CJ Without Saying "I"
|The Supreme Court today came down heavily on a Lucknow-based Advocate for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the oath administered by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on the grounds that the Chief Justice did not use the word 'I' while taking the oath of office. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the oath-taking ceremony for not inviting the Governor and Chief Minister of Goa and the Administrator of the Union Territory of Daman and Diu, Dadar and Nagar Haveli.
The Bench consisting of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, expressed their shock and questioned the Advocate appearing in person as to whether he was actually challenging the oath administered by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on the grounds that the Governor says 'I,' but the Chief Justice did not use the word 'I.'
Clarifying, the Petitioner stated, "Milords when I saw the oath taken by your lordships as Chief Justice of Bharat, milord had used I".
The CJI remarked, "There is a limit to the kinds of frivolous PILs that can come before us. We are dealing with matters of life and death, and now frivolity has even found its way into the Supreme Court. Now what we will do is, have a condition precedent to hearing your matter, because even a minute of our time has implication on public finances and the infrastructure of the Court. We have to sit down and burn the midnight oil...Now, we are asking you to deposit an amount of Rs.1 Lakh as an anticipatory cost in this matter. You deposit the cost then we will hear your grievance."
The Petitioner added that the PIL should not be termed as frivolous without considering it. Noting that the Counsel was making further submissions, the CJI started, "Mr Pandey I was about to impose an anticipatory cost to dissuade these kinds of PIL coming before Court".
However, the Petitioner argued that the PIL should not be labelled as frivolous without proper consideration. Observing that the Counsel was continuing with further submissions, the CJI stated, "Such PIls should be dissuaded from coming before Court".
The Bench accordingly ordered, "The Petitioner who appears in person states that he is aggrieved, what he describes as the 'defective oath' administered to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Petitioner submits that the Chief Justice did not use the expression 'I' before his name while taking the oath in contravention of the third schedule of the Constitution. The second grievance which he has set forth before the Court is that representatives from Goa, Daman and Diu, Dadar and Nagar Haveli were not invited to the oath ceremony."
The Court further noted, "The Petitioner does not, as he possibly cannot, dispute that the oath of the office was administered to the correct person. The oath having been administered by the Governor and having been subscribed to after the administration of the oath, such objection cannot be raised. This a frivolous attempt to use the PIL jurisdiction to propagate some publicity for the Petitioner. We are clearly of the view that such frivolous PILs occupy the time of the Court by deflecting the attention of the Court from serious matters and consuming the structure both in terms of Judicial manpower and Registry for that purpose."
Dictating the aforesaid, the Court further ordered, "The time has come when we should impose an exemplary cost to dissuade such filing. The petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs 25,000. If the cost is not deposited, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue through the Collector and District Magistrate at Lucknow."
Though while dictating the order, the Court imposed a cost of Rs.25,000, as per the order, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000 has been imposed as cost.
The PIL filed by Ashok Pandey stated, "Kindly order for re-oath by Sri Devendra Kumar Upadhyay for the office of Chief Justice for Maharashtra and Goa High court, which is generally known as Bombay High court for the reason that the word ‘ I’ was not used by Hon’ble Sri D K Upadhyay while taking the oath of the office."
Pandey submitted that the oath should have been administered as per the form set out in the Third Schedule but while taking the oath Justice Upadhyay missed the word ‘I’ and hence the oath is defective. The Petitioner also highlighted that in similar circumstances, the oath of office of minister to Mr Azam Khan in Uttar Pradesh and Sri Tej Pratap Yadav in Bihar were re-held by the Governor.
Cause Title: Ashok Pandey v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 966/2023]
The story has been updated after the order was published.
Click here to read/download Order