PIL alleging undervalued IFCI–NSE share sale dismissed after petitioner concealed parallel Bombay case; ₹5 lakh costs imposed

The Petitioner instituted a writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 challenging IFCI Limited’s divestment of 11,25,000 equity shares in the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (“NSE”) during FY 2015–16, allegedly at an undervalue and causing loss to the public exchequer. He sought disclosure of the ownership and ultimate beneficial ownership of the transferee entities, restraint on further alienation or participation in NSE’s proposed Offer for Sale, examination by SEBI, and consideration of his complaints by SEBI and the CBI

IFCI stated that the divestment had been undertaken with SEBI’s approval, through due process and a competitive bidding process conducted through IDFC Securities Limited.

NSE raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioner had already filed W.P. No. 2408/2026 before the Bombay High Court concerning substantially similar issues, including the acquisition of NSE shares by Mauritius-based funds and disclosure of their promoter group and ultimate beneficiaries. The Bombay Writ had been filed on 2 May 2026, before the present PIL was instituted on 5 August 2026.

The Petitioner failed to disclose the Bombay Writ and affirmatively stated in paragraph 41 of the present petition that no earlier petition seeking the same or substantially similar reliefs had been filed before any court or tribunal. The Court found substantial overlap between the two proceedings and treated the non-disclosure as suppression of a material fact and forum shopping.

Whether the Petitioner’s failure to disclose the previously instituted Bombay Writ, coupled with the incorrect averment in paragraph 41 of the present PIL, violated the disclosure requirement under Rule 9(i)(h) of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010?

Whether the Bombay Writ and the present PIL involved substantially similar subject matter and reliefs, thereby amounting to parallel proceedings and forum shopping?

Whether the suppression of the prior proceeding and the Petitioner’s lack of candour disentitled him from relief without examination of the merits of the allegations concerning IFCI’s divestment?

The Court applied the equitable and discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, under which a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands and make full and fair disclosure of all material facts.

Rule 9(i)(h) of the Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 requires disclosure, in tabular form, of previously filed PILs or letter petitions, including their number, status and outcome, thereby preventing parallel proceedings and conflicting adjudication.

Relying on State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Court held that PIL jurisdiction must be protected from abuse and frivolous or oblique litigation.

Under State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, suppression or misleading disclosure in a PIL may constitute abuse of process and disentitle the petitioner to relief; a PIL petitioner must approach the Court with a clean mind, heart and objective.

The Court also relied on State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, (2022) 19 SCC 626, for the proposition that non-disclosure of prior similar proceedings may justify rejection of a PIL at the threshold.

The Court compared the Bombay Writ with the present PIL and found a direct and substantial overlap: both proceedings concerned the same NSE shareholding and sought disclosure of the ownership, promoter group and ultimate beneficiaries of the entities acquiring or holding those shares.

Since the Bombay Writ had been instituted by the Petitioner himself before the present PIL, his failure to disclose it could not be treated as inadvertent. The categorical statement in paragraph 41 that no similar proceeding had been filed was demonstrably incorrect. This conduct breached the candour and disclosure obligations applicable with particular strictness to PIL proceedings, indicated forum shopping, and amounted to abuse of the Court’s process. Consequently, the Court held that the Petitioner was disentitled to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction, making it unnecessary to examine whether IFCI had sold the NSE shares at an undervalue or caused loss to the public exchequer.

Exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000 were imposed on the Petitioner, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks.

The Petitioner’s request for reduction of costs was rejected.