The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up a lawyer for filing four frivolous public interest litigation (PIL) petitions on subjects ranging from alcohol regulation and land registration to whether onions and garlic carry negative (tamasic) energy.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard and dismissed all four petitions.

"This petition is another example of a casual approach in drafting the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and burdening this Court with undesirable litigation. The petitioner, however, if so advised, may approach the competent Authority. The instant petition is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed," the Court said while dismissing a PIL concerning classical languages.

The said PIL sought directions for the framing of a policy related to the criteria for the declaration of languages as classical languages and for the declaration of "classical dialects."

Monday's hearing of the matter also saw CJI Surya Kant ask the petitioner, Advocate Sachin Gupta,

"Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya? (Do you draft these petitions at midnight?)"

The Bench added,

"Dukaane aise bohot chala rakhi hai tum logo ne (You people are running a lot of these PIL shops)."

Referring to the petition that referred to Jain beliefs of tamasic or negative energy in onions and garlic, the Bench questioned why the court should sit in judgment over the sentiments of the Jain community.

The petition was dismissed as "wholly baseless" and with a a stern warning that the lawyer may be saddled with costs if he files more such petitions in future.

"it is abundantly evident that the same is drafted very poorly, apart from also being vague. Additionally, it does not raise any substantial question(s) of law warranting sustained consideration by this Court. Ordinarily, we would have liked to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner with a view to discourage such a casual and lackadaisical approach to agitating this Court’s writ jurisdiction. However, considering that the petitioner is an Advocate, we presently refrain from doing so. We, however, issue a stern warning to the petitioner-Advocate to refrain from filing/pursuing any such petitions in the future," the Court's order said.

A petition seeking directions to constitute a committee to draft a policy "to examine the feasibility of a registration drive for unregistered property in the country" was dismissed after the Court observed,

"This writ petition is yet another example of complete nonapplication of mind on the part of the petitioner while drafting the same and is wholly frivolous."

A fourth such plea was thrown out for prayers that were "absolutely vague, evasive and frivolous."

[Read Orders]

[Live coverage]