In PILs, petitioners must be above suspicion like Caesar's wife: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) while observing that it was mischievous and filed with oblique motives (Ashirbad Pattnaik v. Union of India)..A Bench of Justices Jaswant Singh and SK Panigrahi also directed the petitioners to deposit costs of ₹5000 each before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund within four weeks. While doing so, the Court observed,"Generally, the courts rely on the counsels to advise their clients to be truthful and explain to them the consequences that entail in the event of misadventures. More so, in the case of Public Interest Litigation the petitioners must be like the proverbial Caesar's wife “above suspicion”.".The petition sought relief against the State on allegations of illegal mining and transportation of minerals, resulting in loss to the public exchequer.When the matter was taken up by the Bench, it was observed that there were procedural improprieties on the part of the petitioners and their counsel that gave rise to doubts that there was much more than met the eye..On perusal of the petition, the Court found that the same counsel had filed an earlier plea on behalf of a different set of petitioners, having similar content and seeking identical relief. In fact, the grievances raised in both the petitions were similar in substance. It was noticed that only the petitioners had been replaced in the petition with some minor alterations to the pleadings..In light of this, the Bench observed that it was essential for the Court to be satisfied with the credentials of an applicant. In the present case, it was noted that no declaration was made to validate the bona fide of the petitioners or to demonstrate their public-spiritedness.“This Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and the information furnished being not vague and indefinite. But in the present case, we find it to be a mischievous petition seeking to assail with oblique motives which prevents us from invoking our discretionary writ jurisdiction.”.The Court also found that the petition had not been filed in accordance with the Orissa High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. The petitioners had contravened the Rules by deliberately suppressing the previous PIL. Further, they had not proved the veracity of the pleadings, which were based on newspaper reports..It was opined that since the earlier petition was dismissed, the advocate should have known better and advised his clients accordingly. In relation to this, Rule 9 of the Rules was referred to which dealt with frivolous and vexatious PILs. This Rule provides that where the Court is of the opinion that the PIL is frivolous or vexatious, it shall dismiss the same with exemplary costs..Before concluding, the Bench stated that ordinarily, it would have made observations against the counsel. However, considering the early stages of his career, they refrained from commenting, “except to advise him to be careful in future and not be a party to such a litigation initiated by unscrupulous litigants.”.The Court directed the Registry to stringently comply with the Rules while dealing with PILs, to prevent valuable judicial time from being wasted and to prevent unscrupulous elements from weaponising petitions..Advocate General Ashok Kumar Parija appeared for the State of Odisha. Advocate Sambit Samal represented the Petitioners..[Read Judgment]