“This deflects attention of the court from more serious cases and consumes judicial manpower and resources. Time has come to dissuade such petitions and hence the cost imposed on the petitioner,” the Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed.
—
ON Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Ashok Pandey challenging the oath administered to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya as being defective because Justice Upadhyay did not utter “I” before reading his name after the governor.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took strong exception to the petition which it described as frivolous. The Bench dismissed it with a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.
“There is a limit to frivolity in the Supreme Court,” a visibly miffed CJI remarked.
Initially, the Bench considered directing the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh in the Supreme Court before it could hear the matter on merits. Eventually, the Bench dismissed the petition with costs observing that this was a frivolous attempt to garner publicity for the petitioner.
“This deflects attention of the court from more serious cases and consumes judicial manpower and resources. Time has come to dissuade such petitions and hence the cost imposed on the petitioner,” the Bench observed.
Another Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was faced with a frivolous petition which sought to challenge Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Einstein’s popular mass–energy equivalence (E = mc²) equation.
The petitioner contended that these theories were incorrect and had caused harm to thousands of people, and thus should not be taught in educational institutions.
An irked Bench told the petitioner to propound his own theory and get it recognised by the world. The Bench also made it clear to the petitioner in no uncertain terms that it did not sit to prove Newton and Einstein wrong.
Dismissing frivolous PILs has become a regular feature of Supreme Court proceedings.
On August 25, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed a PIL challenging certain provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The PIL was filed by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Child, an anti-abortion organisation.
The Bench was of the view that the Parliament has made the provisions in the interest of women.
The CJI had questioned the locus standi of the petitioner. “What is your locus? How are you concerned with the provisions of the Act?” the CJI asked.
On the same day, the Bench also dismissed a PIL seeking exclusion of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 in Scheduled Areas.
“What is it? You do not want the IPC to be applied in Scheduled Areas. You can commit murders, etc. Sorry, don’t even argue it. Dismissed,” was the CJI curt comment while expressing his displeasure at the PIL.
Last year, the court had flagged the “thousands of frivolous” PILs being filed, burdening the docket of the courts.
On July 4 this year, a Supreme Court Bench comprising the CJI and Justice P.S. Narasimha had expressed its displeasure at the proliferation of frivolous PILs presented before them.
The CJI had extolled, “These kinds of PILs must stop.”
He had also warned, “We should start imposing costs now because our time is wasted.”
The total number of cases pending before the Supreme Court, as on July 1, 2023, is 69,766, the Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal recently revealed in Lok Sabha.
