Advocate's Misrepresentation in Public Interest Litigation Leads to Dismissal and Warning from Court
In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Rakesh Mishra, condemning it as a gross abuse of the court's PIL jurisdiction. The court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, identified the petition as a disguised attempt to seek relief for private interests under the guise of public welfare.
The PIL, filed under the pretense of public interest, sought directions from the court to expedite an inquiry into the allotment of certain contracts, alleging arbitrary and mala fide actions by the respondents. Additionally, the petitioner requested the withholding of retiral benefits of a specific respondent pending a departmental inquiry. However, upon closer scrutiny, the court found that the petitioner, who claimed to be a social activist, had deliberately suppressed his status as an Advocate. The court noted that the petition essentially aimed to favor a specific party, M/s Bajpai Traders, whose contract had been previously canceled.
The judgment elaborated that the petitioner had previously made a representation to the Chief Minister, which clearly indicated his advocacy for M/s Bajpai Traders, revealing his true intent. The court highlighted that the same counsel representing the petitioner in the PIL had also filed writ petitions on behalf of M/s Bajpai Traders, which further underscored the misuse of the PIL jurisdiction.
The bench emphasized that PILs are intended to serve the public interest and not to be exploited for private gains or to advance the interests of particular clients under the facade of social activism. The court issued a stern warning to the petitioner, cautioning that any future misuse of the PIL jurisdiction could result in severe consequences.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of PILs and ensuring they remain a tool for genuine public interest rather than a means for advancing private agendas.
Bottom line:-
Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction - Advocate filing PIL claiming to be a social activist, while seeking relief for specific private interests - Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of process and cannot be permitted.
Statutory provision(s): None specified in the judgment.
Rakesh Mishra v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2948813
