"Politically induced litigation:" Bombay High Court on BJP MLA's plea against Assembly Speaker election rules

The Bombay High Court last week dismissed as non-maintainable two public interest litigations challenging rules for election of speaker and deputy speaker of Maharashtra assembly after finding no genuine public interest in the pleas. [Janak Vyas v. State of Maharashtra & connected PIL].In the 36-page order dismissing the petitions, the Court emphasized that the proceedings initiated invoking the public interest jurisdiction of the High Court should not be “politics interest litigation”."Political rivalries have to be resolved elsewhere other than the Courts must be the determining principle for holding whether these PIL petitions involve genuine public interest or whether, at all, Vyas or Mahajan satisfies the test of uberrima fides, which is the first requirement for the maintainability of a public interest litigation” the order stated.While dismissing the petitions last week, the Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik made strong oral remarks about the manner in which the State of Maharashtra and the Governor of the State had been functioning with the citizens eventually suffering for the same..The two public interest litigation petitions challenged the State notification altering Rules 6 (election of speaker) and 7 (selection of deputy speaker) of the MLA Rules, claiming it is arbitrary and in violation the Constitution.Based on the facts and circumstances, the Court deduced that both petitioners did not pass the bonafide test."Political considerations have driven both Vyas and Mahajan to institute these proceedings, which are more in the nature of ‘politically induced litigation’ rather than ‘public interest litigation’,” the order stated..The Bench opined that constitution is a ‘political document’, and the values it contained gave an understanding to the object behind the text.It clarified that if any issue arose on the interpretation of a constitutional provision, which could be called a genuine political issue, the same could be agitated in a PIL provided it was in general public interest.“But not petitions of the present nature which serve only one purpose, i.e., clog the stream of justice by preventing the Court from considering more deserving cases which are made to await their turn for long periods of time,” the Bench underscored..To prove bonafides, the Court had during previous hearing asked Vyas to deposit ₹2 lakh and Mahajan to deposit ₹10 lakh.The Court did not impose costs on the petitioners, however, the security deposit was directed to be forfeited for wasting “precious judicial hours”.The Bench clarified in the order that the deposits were to be utilized for charitable purposes of providing better facilities and amenities to senior citizens residing in old age homes and destitute and orphan children residing in children homes and orphanages.The Registry was called upon to enlist three old age homes and three orphanages and according distribute the ₹12 lakh deposit equally amongst them..Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani with Advocates Gunjan Mangala and Rupesh Lanjekar appeared for Mahajan.Advocates Subhash Jha, Hare Krishna Mishra and Vishal Acharya appeared for Vyas.Advocate General Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni with Advocate Akshay Shinde, “B” Panel Counsel Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan appeared for State.Mahajan has meanwhile moved Supreme Court in appeal against the judgment.[Read order]