Court Imposes Exemplary Costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on Petitioner for Abuse of Process of Law
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on August 19, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Parinay Sharma against the Union of India and others, citing suppression of material facts, non-disclosure of similar prior proceedings, and forum shopping. The court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on the petitioner to deter such misuse of the judicial process.
The PIL sought directions concerning the divestment of IFCI Limited's shareholding in the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) and related disclosures. The petitioner alleged financial irregularities and sought an investigation into the divestment process, claiming a substantial notional loss to the public exchequer.
However, the court noted that Parinay Sharma failed to disclose the existence of a similar writ petition pending before the Bombay High Court, titled "Parinay Sharma v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr." The Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of full disclosure and clean hands in PIL jurisdiction, underscoring that the petitioner had not met these essential criteria.
The bench highlighted that the petitioner indulged in forum shopping by filing overlapping proceedings in different courts. The court referenced Rule 9(i)(h) of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, which mandates disclosure of prior PILs to prevent abuse of process and ensure transparency.
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the judges reiterated that suppression of material facts or misleading statements disqualify a petitioner from relief, regardless of the case's merits. The court's decision to impose exemplary costs aimed to preserve the integrity of PIL proceedings and discourage similar conduct in the future.
Despite a plea from the petitioner's counsel for a reduction in costs, the court maintained the penalty, emphasizing the seriousness of the petitioner's misconduct. The costs are to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks' Association within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
Bottom Line :
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts, non-disclosure of similar prior proceedings, and forum shopping - Exemplary costs imposed to deter abuse of the process of law.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 Rule 9(i)(h)
Parinay Sharma v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967800
