Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision:20 October, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 6802/2010
PAARDARSHITA PUBLIC
WELFARE FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harkrishan Das Nijhawan,
petitioner in person.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, ASG with
Mr. Ajay Vohra, Mr. Kapil Dutta
and Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocates
for MCD.
Mr. Anil Amrit, Advocate for
NDMC.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Advocate with
Ms. Suchiti Chandra, Advocate for
CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ:
If there has been abuse of the process of public interest litigation
in a court in its conceptual essentiality and connotative eventuality, it
can irrefragably be stated that the present litigation which has been
styled as a `Public Interest Litigation’ by a non-Governmental
organisation represented by its General Secretary frescoes a picture and
projects the scenario in the complete sense inasmuch as it fits into the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 1 of 14
said compartment in an apple pie order for the conduct shown by the
representative not only buries all sense of propriety but also, as the facts
would unfurl, endeavours in a maladroit manner to gain advantage of
certain beneficial legislation and judge made law. We have commenced
the order with a prologue of this nature as the gradual undraping of the
factual matrix would vividly so reveal.
2. The petitioner-Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, a non-
Governmental organization, represented by Mr. Harkrishan Das
Nijhawan, the General Secretary has preferred this Public Interest
Litigation with the following prayers:-
“(i) To direct the respondents to initiate thorough
investigation on this matter being a very serious
issue and register F.I.R. against the indicted
government official as well as the contractor,
private agencies for bringing shame to our nation
and large scale bungling in public fund
(Government Money).
(ii) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit so these kind of ill
malpractices being carried out by government
engineers of various department may not reoccur
in future besides fixing responsibilities for causing
loss to the government exchequer. Further it is
humbly submitted that Hon’ble Court may pass
orders for ensuring recovery of looted fund,
attachment of their properties, lockers and other
non declared assets from the culprits government
officials, contractors and other private persons
those found involved in the above illegal act will
be prosecuted as per the law of the land, which
alone being an non Government Organisation we
cannot do without a strict norms and orders issued
by this Hon’ble High Court.”
3. It is asserted in the petition that the General Secretary of the Non-
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 2 of 14
Governmental Organisation is a social worker and is dedicated to
expose the corruption and initiate proceedings against the corrupt
government officers. It is asseverated that the petitioner received
information from various sources that officials of MCD, NDMC and
other Government Engineering Departments entrusted with the
execution of engineering works under Common Wealth Games have
flouted CVC guidelines and CPWD specifications for their personal
gains at the cost of public exchequer.
4. It is urged that the petitioner has submitted numerous complaints
to the higher authorities but the same have fallen on deaf years, the
authorities have maintained a sphinx-like silence. Allegations have
been made how their favourite officers have allotted work to their
favourite contractors without following the norms. In this background,
the aforesaid reliefs have been sought.
5. Be it noted, with regard to allegations made in respect of
siphoning of funds, Union of India has constituted a Committee
namely, Shunglu Committee. Today, in two other writ petitions, this
Court has directed that the Shunglu Committee shall look into the
grievances put forth and liberty has been granted to the petitioners
therein to file documents before the Committee. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok,
learned ASG appearing in those cases had fairly acceded that the
same shall be looked into by the Committee.
6. When this matter was called out first time, a pass over was
sought on behalf of Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned ASG appearing for the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 3 of 14
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. After Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned
ASG appeared, he submitted that ordinarily he would not have opposed
for issuance of similar directions but the present petition is an abuse of
the process of the Court especially by the present NGO, namely,
Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, which is represented by its
General Secretary.
7. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned ASG has brought to our notice the
information sought for by the NGO from Public Information Officer,
MCD South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi. On a query being made
from the petitioner who appeared in person whether he had asked for
such informations, he accepted that he had sought such informations.
8. We think it condign to state the relevant portions of the
application by which informations were sought under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for brevity “the 2005 Act”) :-
“6. Provide us the information in Detail about the
entire Medical History in which the disease mentioned
and the preciousness was suggested to Shri Shri Deepak
Hastir currently posted as Deputy Commissioner,
Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi.
7. Provide us the information in detail about the all
payments was paid to the above hospital for the
operation of piles & sterilization, Sexual Disorder in
respect of Shri Shri Deepak Hasif currently posted as
Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi
till 22-06-2010.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Provide us the information in detail about the all
complaint received against Shri Shri Deepak Hastir
currently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone
of MCD, New Delhi from MCD employees as well as
from the general public, visitors to the MCD office for
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 4 of 14
molesting, misbehaviors as well as some unusual demand
till date during his postings in various department of
MCD.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Provide us the information in Detail about the
male staffs travelling with Shri Shri Deepak Hastir
currently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone
of MCD, New Delhi in his official cars in Central Zone,
during office hours as well as after office hours.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Provide us the information in detail about the
Name of Mother, Surrogated Mothers, Step Mother of
Shri Shri Deepak Hastir, currently posted as Deputy
Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi as per
MCD current and updated records.
15. Provide us the information in detail about the
Name of Father, Biological Father, Step Father of Shri
Shri Deepak Hastir currently posted as Deputy
Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi as per
MCD current and updated records.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Provide us the certified copy of the Report
prepared after DNA Test between Shri Shri Deepak
Hastir and his mother, surrogated mother in the Din
Dayal Hospital, Hindu Rao Hospital as well as any
private Lab (Dr. Lal Pathological Lab) and the charges
for the DNA test was paid by the MCD as per current
and updated records.
18. Provide us the certified copy of HIV & AIDS Test
of Shri Shri Deepak Hastir in the Din Dayal Hospital,
Hindu Rao Hospital as well as any private Lab (Dr. Lal
Pathological Lab) and the charges for the HIV & AIDS
test paid by the MCD as per current and updated
records.”
[Underlining is by us for emphasis]
9. On a perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the petitioner-NGO,
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 5 of 14
we have no hesitation in stating that it is an abuse of the provisions
contained in 2005 Act. We are not giving any kind of clean chit to Mr.
Deepak Hastir, currently posted as Deputy Commissioner of MCD, but
the informations which have been asked are in the realm of
vengeance and clearly exposes the vindictive attitude. In fact, it is a
reflection of extreme vengeance, proclivity in bad taste and definitely
would not come within the realm of the 2005 Act.
10. On a query being made, the petitioner stated without any kind of
hesitation that said Mr. Deepak Hastir had told him that he had been
blackmailing him and, therefore, such informations were sought for by
him.
11. We can only note that assuming said Mr. Deepak Hastir had so
stated, the petitioner should have taken recourse to a course of action as
advised in law but could not have asked for such kind of informations.
As the General Secretary of Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, a
Non-Government Organization, which is supposed to be devoted to the
public welfare, it was not expected of him to ask for such kind of
unwarranted and uncalled for informations. The informations asked for
are bound to create a storm in any civilized mind. It is unfortunate that
the General Secretary of the NGO is asking about the sexual disorder,
DNA test between an officer and his surrogate mother, name of his
biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step
mother and such other aspects which are beyond the perception of
decency and in fact, an invasion into another man’s privacy.
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 6 of 14
12. The 2005 Act was enacted by the Parliament with a definite
purpose. We would like to reproduce the preamble to the Act:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in
the working of every public authority, the constitution
of a Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy
of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for
furnishing certain information to citizens who desire
to have it.”
In this regard, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant part of Section
8 of 2005 Act. It reads as follows:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information (1)….
(j) information which relates to personal information
the disclosure of which has not relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 7 of 14
State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied
to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be
denied to any person.”
13. On a perusal of the preamble and Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we
have no scintilla of doubt that information relating to personal
information which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the individual are not to be given unless larger public interest justify the
disclosure of such information. The said principle has its own
sacrosanctity. Right to privacy is a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution as has been held by their Lordships in Gobind v. State of
MP , (1975) 2 SCC 148, R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC
632 and District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank , (2005) 1
SCC 496. When any personal information sought that has no nexus
with any public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. In
the case at hand, we really fail to fathom how the information sought by
the petitioner comes within sufficient public interest. In our considered
opinion, the information sought remotely has no relationship with any
public activity or interest. In fact, the informations sought are a direct
invasion in the private life of the individual.
14. At this juncture, we are disposed to advert to the concept of
public interest litigation. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India ,
(1990) 1 SCC 613, it has been held as follows:
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 8 of 14
“36. Therefore, conceptually and from the
jurisprudential point of view, especially in the
background of the preamble to the Constitution of
India and the mandate of the directive principles, it
was possible to authorise the Central Government
to take over the claims of the victims to fight
against the multinational corporation in respect of
the claims. Because of the situation the victims
were under disability in pursuing their claims in
the circumstances of the situation fully and
properly. On its plain terms the State has taken
over the exclusive right to represent and act in
place of every person who has made or is entitled
to make a claim for all purposes connected with
such claim in the same manner and to the same
effect as such person. Whether such provision is
valid or not in the background of the requirement
of the Constitution and the Code of Civil
Procedure, is another debate. But there is no
prohibition or inhibition, in our opinion,
conceptually or jurisprudentially for the Indian
State taking over the claims of the victims or for
the State acting for the victims as the Act has
sought to provide. The actual meaning of what the
Act has provided and the validity thereof,
however, will have to be examined in the light of
the specific submissions advanced in this case.”
15. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others , AIR 1991 SC
420, it has been held as follows:-
“7. ……… ……. …… Public interest litigation
cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons
to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If
such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it
would amount to abuse of process of the Court,
preventing speedy remedy to other genuine
petitioners from this Court. Personal interest
cannot be enforced through the process of this
Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the garb
of a public interest litigation. Public interest
litigation contemplates legal proceeding for
vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights
of a group of persons or community which are not
able to enforce their fundamental rights on account
of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 9 of 14
person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Art. 32 must approach this Court for the
vindication of the fundamental rights of affected
persons and not for the purpose of vindication of
his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty of this
Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure
that the course of justice is not obstructed or
polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal
matters under the garb of the public interest
litigation, see Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, (1984) 2 SCR 67 : (AIR 1984 SC 802);
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal,
(1987) 2 SCC 295 at p 331 : (AIR 1987 SC 1109);
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1989)
Supp 117 SCC 251 and Chhetriya Pardushan
Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990) 4
SCC 449.”
16. In The Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary & Ors ., AIR 1993 SC
892, the Apex Court while dealing with the concept of public interest
litigation expressed thus:-
“47. We shall now briefly deal with the scope and
object of `public interest litigation’ (PIL), the horizon
of which is widely extended and which at present
constitutes a new chapter in justice delivery system
acquiring a significant degree of importance in the
modern legal jurisprudence practiced by Courts in
many parts of the world, based on the principle,
“Liberty and Justice for All”.
17. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , AIR
2004 SC 280, it has been held as follows:-
“12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that
behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking
is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon
in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the
citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest
litigation should not be used for suspicious products
of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 10 of 14
public wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As
indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a
body of persons or member of public, who approaches
the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain
or private motive or political motivation or other
oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit
or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by
a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The
petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out
by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases
with exemplary costs.
13. The council for Public Interest Law set up by the
Ford Foundation in USA defined the “public interest
litigation” in its report of Public Interest Law, USA,
1976 as follows :
“Public Interest Law is the name that has
recently been given to efforts provide legal
representation to previously unrepresented
groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary
market place for legal services fails to provide
such services to significant segments of the
population and to significant interests. Such
groups and interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. In Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , AIR 2004 SC 1923, it
has been held as follows:-
“5. When there is material to show that a petition
styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a
camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta
to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or
gain publicity or a façade for blackmail, said
petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple
with the issues involved in the present case, we
feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the
“public interest” aspect. Public interest litigation
which had now come to occupy an important field
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 11 of 14
in the administration of law should not be
“publicity interest litigation” or “private interest
litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the
latest trend “paise income litigation.” If not
properly and strictly regulated at least in certain
vital areas or spheres and abuse averted it becomes
also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release
vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well to malign
not only an incumbent to be in office but
demoralise and deter reasonable or sensible and
prudent people even agreeing to accept highly
sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being
brought into disrepute with baseless allegations.
There must be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and concrete or credible
basis for maintaining a cause before Court and not
merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their
personal causes or satisfy his or their personal
grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. The
credibility of such claims or litigations should be
adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials,
averred and not even on the credentials claimed of
the persons moving the Courts in such cases. A
person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of public interest
litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out violation of
fundamental rights and genuine infraction of
statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or
private profit or political motive an any oblique
consideration. These aspects were highlighted by
this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary and
others (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Thendup
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994
Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes
to the Court for relief in public interest must come
not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind
and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.
Srinivas v. B.M. Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620).”
[Emphasis supplied]
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 12 of 14
19. In N.K. Prasada v. Government of India & Ors. , (2004) 6 SCC
299, the Apex Court referred to the concept of public interest as has
been stated in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K.
Rajan , (2003) 7 SCC 546; Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P.
Gururaja , (2003) 8 SCC 567 and Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India ,
(2003) 2 SCC 673 and, eventually, their Lordships expressed the views
as follows:-
“30. We are pained to see how the forum of public
interest litigation is being abused. This Court
recently had also the occasion to notice the same.
[See Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.,
(2004) 3 SCC 349 : 2003 AIR SCW 6105 and B.
Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363 :
2004 AIR SCW 1494.].”
20. From the aforesaid pronouncement in law, it can safely be
deduced that the public interest litigation in its denotative sense
basically pertains to interest of the collective at large and such
collective who are socially so backward and sans means to have access
to Court and at that stage a public spirited person rises to the occasion
to canvass the cause of the marginalized section for their benefit. In
addition to the same, in its connotative expanse, it encapsules and
engulfs such subject matters which are of social importance and
inherently relate to socio-economic, socio-cultural and embedded
humanitarian facets like environmental pollution, ecological balance,
preservation of national interest, maintenance of roads, hospitals,
availability of facilities of education and such other categories which
clearly point to the public interest without any kind of design. It is apt
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 13 of 14
to state here the aforesaid spheres have been mentioned in an
illustrative and not exhaustive manner. But, it can be said with certitude
that the public interest litigation was never conceived of to settle scores
in a Court of law or to give vent to personal causes to pyramid an
eventuality in the guise of fight against the `City Halls’, to ascribe
utterances in the name of loss to the exchequer.
21. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, which really throw a
laser beam on petitioner’s exposited antecedents, it is indubitably clear
that it is an abuse of the process of the law. Ergo, we are not inclined to
interfere in the present writ petition. We are disposed to think that the
petitioner has conceived the idea or notion that revenge is sweetest but
failed to realise the eventual fruit of revenge is always bitter. Hence,
we dismiss the writ petition with costs which is assessed at Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand). The costs shall be deposited with the
Blind Relief Association, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Near Oberoi
Hotel, New Delhi-110003 within a period of four weeks. If the costs
are not deposited, liberty is granted to the respondent-MCD to move an
application in this writ petition so that appropriate action can be taken
against the petitioner-NGO.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 20, 2010
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 14 of 14
th
% Date of Decision:20 October, 2010
+ W.P.(C) 6802/2010
PAARDARSHITA PUBLIC
WELFARE FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harkrishan Das Nijhawan,
petitioner in person.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, ASG with
Mr. Ajay Vohra, Mr. Kapil Dutta
and Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Advocates
for MCD.
Mr. Anil Amrit, Advocate for
NDMC.
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Advocate with
Ms. Suchiti Chandra, Advocate for
CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
DIPAK MISRA, CJ:
If there has been abuse of the process of public interest litigation
in a court in its conceptual essentiality and connotative eventuality, it
can irrefragably be stated that the present litigation which has been
styled as a `Public Interest Litigation’ by a non-Governmental
organisation represented by its General Secretary frescoes a picture and
projects the scenario in the complete sense inasmuch as it fits into the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 1 of 14
said compartment in an apple pie order for the conduct shown by the
representative not only buries all sense of propriety but also, as the facts
would unfurl, endeavours in a maladroit manner to gain advantage of
certain beneficial legislation and judge made law. We have commenced
the order with a prologue of this nature as the gradual undraping of the
factual matrix would vividly so reveal.
2. The petitioner-Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, a non-
Governmental organization, represented by Mr. Harkrishan Das
Nijhawan, the General Secretary has preferred this Public Interest
Litigation with the following prayers:-
“(i) To direct the respondents to initiate thorough
investigation on this matter being a very serious
issue and register F.I.R. against the indicted
government official as well as the contractor,
private agencies for bringing shame to our nation
and large scale bungling in public fund
(Government Money).
(ii) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit so these kind of ill
malpractices being carried out by government
engineers of various department may not reoccur
in future besides fixing responsibilities for causing
loss to the government exchequer. Further it is
humbly submitted that Hon’ble Court may pass
orders for ensuring recovery of looted fund,
attachment of their properties, lockers and other
non declared assets from the culprits government
officials, contractors and other private persons
those found involved in the above illegal act will
be prosecuted as per the law of the land, which
alone being an non Government Organisation we
cannot do without a strict norms and orders issued
by this Hon’ble High Court.”
3. It is asserted in the petition that the General Secretary of the Non-
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 2 of 14
Governmental Organisation is a social worker and is dedicated to
expose the corruption and initiate proceedings against the corrupt
government officers. It is asseverated that the petitioner received
information from various sources that officials of MCD, NDMC and
other Government Engineering Departments entrusted with the
execution of engineering works under Common Wealth Games have
flouted CVC guidelines and CPWD specifications for their personal
gains at the cost of public exchequer.
4. It is urged that the petitioner has submitted numerous complaints
to the higher authorities but the same have fallen on deaf years, the
authorities have maintained a sphinx-like silence. Allegations have
been made how their favourite officers have allotted work to their
favourite contractors without following the norms. In this background,
the aforesaid reliefs have been sought.
5. Be it noted, with regard to allegations made in respect of
siphoning of funds, Union of India has constituted a Committee
namely, Shunglu Committee. Today, in two other writ petitions, this
Court has directed that the Shunglu Committee shall look into the
grievances put forth and liberty has been granted to the petitioners
therein to file documents before the Committee. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok,
learned ASG appearing in those cases had fairly acceded that the
same shall be looked into by the Committee.
6. When this matter was called out first time, a pass over was
sought on behalf of Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned ASG appearing for the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 3 of 14
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. After Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned
ASG appeared, he submitted that ordinarily he would not have opposed
for issuance of similar directions but the present petition is an abuse of
the process of the Court especially by the present NGO, namely,
Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, which is represented by its
General Secretary.
7. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned ASG has brought to our notice the
information sought for by the NGO from Public Information Officer,
MCD South Zone, Green Park, New Delhi. On a query being made
from the petitioner who appeared in person whether he had asked for
such informations, he accepted that he had sought such informations.
8. We think it condign to state the relevant portions of the
application by which informations were sought under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (for brevity “the 2005 Act”) :-
“6. Provide us the information in Detail about the
entire Medical History in which the disease mentioned
and the preciousness was suggested to Shri Shri Deepak
Hastir currently posted as Deputy Commissioner,
Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi.
7. Provide us the information in detail about the all
payments was paid to the above hospital for the
operation of piles & sterilization, Sexual Disorder in
respect of Shri Shri Deepak Hasif currently posted as
Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi
till 22-06-2010.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Provide us the information in detail about the all
complaint received against Shri Shri Deepak Hastir
currently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone
of MCD, New Delhi from MCD employees as well as
from the general public, visitors to the MCD office for
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 4 of 14
molesting, misbehaviors as well as some unusual demand
till date during his postings in various department of
MCD.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Provide us the information in Detail about the
male staffs travelling with Shri Shri Deepak Hastir
currently posted as Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone
of MCD, New Delhi in his official cars in Central Zone,
during office hours as well as after office hours.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Provide us the information in detail about the
Name of Mother, Surrogated Mothers, Step Mother of
Shri Shri Deepak Hastir, currently posted as Deputy
Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi as per
MCD current and updated records.
15. Provide us the information in detail about the
Name of Father, Biological Father, Step Father of Shri
Shri Deepak Hastir currently posted as Deputy
Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, New Delhi as per
MCD current and updated records.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Provide us the certified copy of the Report
prepared after DNA Test between Shri Shri Deepak
Hastir and his mother, surrogated mother in the Din
Dayal Hospital, Hindu Rao Hospital as well as any
private Lab (Dr. Lal Pathological Lab) and the charges
for the DNA test was paid by the MCD as per current
and updated records.
18. Provide us the certified copy of HIV & AIDS Test
of Shri Shri Deepak Hastir in the Din Dayal Hospital,
Hindu Rao Hospital as well as any private Lab (Dr. Lal
Pathological Lab) and the charges for the HIV & AIDS
test paid by the MCD as per current and updated
records.”
[Underlining is by us for emphasis]
9. On a perusal of the aforesaid letter issued by the petitioner-NGO,
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 5 of 14
we have no hesitation in stating that it is an abuse of the provisions
contained in 2005 Act. We are not giving any kind of clean chit to Mr.
Deepak Hastir, currently posted as Deputy Commissioner of MCD, but
the informations which have been asked are in the realm of
vengeance and clearly exposes the vindictive attitude. In fact, it is a
reflection of extreme vengeance, proclivity in bad taste and definitely
would not come within the realm of the 2005 Act.
10. On a query being made, the petitioner stated without any kind of
hesitation that said Mr. Deepak Hastir had told him that he had been
blackmailing him and, therefore, such informations were sought for by
him.
11. We can only note that assuming said Mr. Deepak Hastir had so
stated, the petitioner should have taken recourse to a course of action as
advised in law but could not have asked for such kind of informations.
As the General Secretary of Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, a
Non-Government Organization, which is supposed to be devoted to the
public welfare, it was not expected of him to ask for such kind of
unwarranted and uncalled for informations. The informations asked for
are bound to create a storm in any civilized mind. It is unfortunate that
the General Secretary of the NGO is asking about the sexual disorder,
DNA test between an officer and his surrogate mother, name of his
biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step
mother and such other aspects which are beyond the perception of
decency and in fact, an invasion into another man’s privacy.
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 6 of 14
12. The 2005 Act was enacted by the Parliament with a definite
purpose. We would like to reproduce the preamble to the Act:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in
order to promote transparency and accountability in
the working of every public authority, the constitution
of a Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities
accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy
of the democratic ideal;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for
furnishing certain information to citizens who desire
to have it.”
In this regard, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant part of Section
8 of 2005 Act. It reads as follows:
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information (1)….
(j) information which relates to personal information
the disclosure of which has not relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
unless the Central Public Information Officer or the
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 7 of 14
State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such
information:
Provided that the information, which cannot be denied
to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be
denied to any person.”
13. On a perusal of the preamble and Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we
have no scintilla of doubt that information relating to personal
information which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the individual are not to be given unless larger public interest justify the
disclosure of such information. The said principle has its own
sacrosanctity. Right to privacy is a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution as has been held by their Lordships in Gobind v. State of
MP , (1975) 2 SCC 148, R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC
632 and District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank , (2005) 1
SCC 496. When any personal information sought that has no nexus
with any public activity or interest, the same is not to be provided. In
the case at hand, we really fail to fathom how the information sought by
the petitioner comes within sufficient public interest. In our considered
opinion, the information sought remotely has no relationship with any
public activity or interest. In fact, the informations sought are a direct
invasion in the private life of the individual.
14. At this juncture, we are disposed to advert to the concept of
public interest litigation. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India ,
(1990) 1 SCC 613, it has been held as follows:
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 8 of 14
“36. Therefore, conceptually and from the
jurisprudential point of view, especially in the
background of the preamble to the Constitution of
India and the mandate of the directive principles, it
was possible to authorise the Central Government
to take over the claims of the victims to fight
against the multinational corporation in respect of
the claims. Because of the situation the victims
were under disability in pursuing their claims in
the circumstances of the situation fully and
properly. On its plain terms the State has taken
over the exclusive right to represent and act in
place of every person who has made or is entitled
to make a claim for all purposes connected with
such claim in the same manner and to the same
effect as such person. Whether such provision is
valid or not in the background of the requirement
of the Constitution and the Code of Civil
Procedure, is another debate. But there is no
prohibition or inhibition, in our opinion,
conceptually or jurisprudentially for the Indian
State taking over the claims of the victims or for
the State acting for the victims as the Act has
sought to provide. The actual meaning of what the
Act has provided and the validity thereof,
however, will have to be examined in the light of
the specific submissions advanced in this case.”
15. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and others , AIR 1991 SC
420, it has been held as follows:-
“7. ……… ……. …… Public interest litigation
cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons
to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If
such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it
would amount to abuse of process of the Court,
preventing speedy remedy to other genuine
petitioners from this Court. Personal interest
cannot be enforced through the process of this
Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the garb
of a public interest litigation. Public interest
litigation contemplates legal proceeding for
vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights
of a group of persons or community which are not
able to enforce their fundamental rights on account
of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 9 of 14
person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Art. 32 must approach this Court for the
vindication of the fundamental rights of affected
persons and not for the purpose of vindication of
his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty of this
Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure
that the course of justice is not obstructed or
polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal
matters under the garb of the public interest
litigation, see Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, (1984) 2 SCR 67 : (AIR 1984 SC 802);
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal,
(1987) 2 SCC 295 at p 331 : (AIR 1987 SC 1109);
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, (1989)
Supp 117 SCC 251 and Chhetriya Pardushan
Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990) 4
SCC 449.”
16. In The Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary & Ors ., AIR 1993 SC
892, the Apex Court while dealing with the concept of public interest
litigation expressed thus:-
“47. We shall now briefly deal with the scope and
object of `public interest litigation’ (PIL), the horizon
of which is widely extended and which at present
constitutes a new chapter in justice delivery system
acquiring a significant degree of importance in the
modern legal jurisprudence practiced by Courts in
many parts of the world, based on the principle,
“Liberty and Justice for All”.
17. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , AIR
2004 SC 280, it has been held as follows:-
“12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to
be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that
behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly
private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking
is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon
in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the
citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest
litigation should not be used for suspicious products
of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 10 of 14
public wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As
indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a
body of persons or member of public, who approaches
the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain
or private motive or political motivation or other
oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations. Some
persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of
meddling with judicial process either by force of habit
or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by
a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The
petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out
by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases
with exemplary costs.
13. The council for Public Interest Law set up by the
Ford Foundation in USA defined the “public interest
litigation” in its report of Public Interest Law, USA,
1976 as follows :
“Public Interest Law is the name that has
recently been given to efforts provide legal
representation to previously unrepresented
groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary
market place for legal services fails to provide
such services to significant segments of the
population and to significant interests. Such
groups and interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others.”
[Emphasis supplied]
18. In Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. , AIR 2004 SC 1923, it
has been held as follows:-
“5. When there is material to show that a petition
styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a
camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta
to bring to terms a person, not of ones liking, or
gain publicity or a façade for blackmail, said
petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple
with the issues involved in the present case, we
feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the
“public interest” aspect. Public interest litigation
which had now come to occupy an important field
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 11 of 14
in the administration of law should not be
“publicity interest litigation” or “private interest
litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the
latest trend “paise income litigation.” If not
properly and strictly regulated at least in certain
vital areas or spheres and abuse averted it becomes
also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release
vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well to malign
not only an incumbent to be in office but
demoralise and deter reasonable or sensible and
prudent people even agreeing to accept highly
sensitive and responsible offices for fear of being
brought into disrepute with baseless allegations.
There must be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and concrete or credible
basis for maintaining a cause before Court and not
merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of
wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their
personal causes or satisfy his or their personal
grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by
resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. The
credibility of such claims or litigations should be
adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials,
averred and not even on the credentials claimed of
the persons moving the Courts in such cases. A
person acting bona fide and having sufficient
interest in the proceeding of public interest
litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out violation of
fundamental rights and genuine infraction of
statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or
private profit or political motive an any oblique
consideration. These aspects were highlighted by
this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary and
others (1992 (4) SCC 305) and Kazi Thendup
Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation (1994
Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ petitioner who comes
to the Court for relief in public interest must come
not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind
and clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R.
Srinivas v. B.M. Premchand (1994 (6) SCC 620).”
[Emphasis supplied]
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 12 of 14
19. In N.K. Prasada v. Government of India & Ors. , (2004) 6 SCC
299, the Apex Court referred to the concept of public interest as has
been stated in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K.
Rajan , (2003) 7 SCC 546; Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P.
Gururaja , (2003) 8 SCC 567 and Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India ,
(2003) 2 SCC 673 and, eventually, their Lordships expressed the views
as follows:-
“30. We are pained to see how the forum of public
interest litigation is being abused. This Court
recently had also the occasion to notice the same.
[See Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.,
(2004) 3 SCC 349 : 2003 AIR SCW 6105 and B.
Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 363 :
2004 AIR SCW 1494.].”
20. From the aforesaid pronouncement in law, it can safely be
deduced that the public interest litigation in its denotative sense
basically pertains to interest of the collective at large and such
collective who are socially so backward and sans means to have access
to Court and at that stage a public spirited person rises to the occasion
to canvass the cause of the marginalized section for their benefit. In
addition to the same, in its connotative expanse, it encapsules and
engulfs such subject matters which are of social importance and
inherently relate to socio-economic, socio-cultural and embedded
humanitarian facets like environmental pollution, ecological balance,
preservation of national interest, maintenance of roads, hospitals,
availability of facilities of education and such other categories which
clearly point to the public interest without any kind of design. It is apt
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 13 of 14
to state here the aforesaid spheres have been mentioned in an
illustrative and not exhaustive manner. But, it can be said with certitude
that the public interest litigation was never conceived of to settle scores
in a Court of law or to give vent to personal causes to pyramid an
eventuality in the guise of fight against the `City Halls’, to ascribe
utterances in the name of loss to the exchequer.
21. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts, which really throw a
laser beam on petitioner’s exposited antecedents, it is indubitably clear
that it is an abuse of the process of the law. Ergo, we are not inclined to
interfere in the present writ petition. We are disposed to think that the
petitioner has conceived the idea or notion that revenge is sweetest but
failed to realise the eventual fruit of revenge is always bitter. Hence,
we dismiss the writ petition with costs which is assessed at Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand). The costs shall be deposited with the
Blind Relief Association, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Near Oberoi
Hotel, New Delhi-110003 within a period of four weeks. If the costs
are not deposited, liberty is granted to the respondent-MCD to move an
application in this writ petition so that appropriate action can be taken
against the petitioner-NGO.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMOHAN, J
OCTOBER 20, 2010
W.P.(C) 6802/2010 Page 14 of 14