The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging government advertisements as election-oriented and misleading. The Court held the petition was misconceived, lacked legal grounds, and contained unsupported allegations of falsehood without specific examples.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed byMUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2024.01.29 15:46:35 +0530
1 PIL 24-04.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.24 OF 2004
Janhit Manch & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani, Petitioner No.2 in person present.
Mr. Y. R. Mishra for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, Addl. GP for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
RESERVED ON : 12TH JANUARY 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 29TH JANUARY 2024
P.C. : (PER ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
The present Petition, stated to be filed in the public
interest, pertains to the expenditure on advertisements issued by the State and Union Government.
1 of 9
Mugdha
2 PIL 24-04.doc
such advertisements come at a huge cost to the public exchequer and inter alia provide “false and misleading information to the readers1 ” and the main purpose behind such advertisements is not to furnish authentic information to the public, but it is “always for self publicity and promotion for the next election2 ”. It is thus that the Petitioners have sought following reliefs viz. :-
1 paragraph 2 page 3 of the Petition
2 paragraph 2 page 3 of the Petition
2 of 9
Mugdha
3 PIL 24-04.doc
3 of 9
Mugdha
4 PIL 24-04.doc
the Respondent No. 1 - Union of India first submitted that the
4 of 9
Mugdha
5 PIL 24-04.doc
Petition was entirely untenable. He submitted that the advertisements issued were pursuant to the policy decisions of the Government to which there was not even a hint of a challenge in the present Petition. He then pointed out that the amounts spent on advertisements were negligible and were well within budgetary allocation for the same. He thus submitted that the Petition was required to be dismissed on these grounds alone. Mr. Mishra invited our attention to the Affidavit in Reply filed by Respondent No.1 and pointed out that each and every contention of the Petitioners had been dealt with and negated therein.
A. At the outset, we must note that the only grounds of challenge contained in the Petition read as follows :-
5 of 9
Mugdha
6 PIL 24-04.doc
Aside from the above, we must note that there are no grounds of challenge raised in the Petition. We must also note that the above “grounds” would in no manner even remotely qualify as being legal ground of challenge, much less sustainable grounds of challenge. The same read purely as the ipse dixit of the Petitioners. We fail to understand how a Petition like the present one can be maintained either in the Public Interest or even otherwise. There is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever set out
6 of 9
Mugdha
7 PIL 24-04.doc
by the Petitioner to support the reliefs which have been prayed for. In this context, it is apposite to note the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Anand, Indore Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others3 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows, viz.
“18. Before we part, we cannot help mentioning that on issues of constitutional law, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which if we may say so, are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion giving an extempore appearance not having had even a second look. This is the impression that one gets on reading the present petition. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court's jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the court that he does not rush to court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. ………………………...” (emphasis supplied)
We find that the above observations apply on all fours to the Petitioners’ conduct in the present case.
3 (1996) 6 SCC 734
7 of 9
Mugdha
8 PIL 24-04.doc
B. Additionally, we find that though the Petitioners have made serious allegations in the Petition that the advertisements issued by the State and Union Government inter alia contain “false and misleading information”, the Petitioners have not pointed out a single advertisement which according to them is false. We do not for a minute suggest that the veracity or otherwise of an advertisement issued by the State/Union is to be determined on the Petitioners mere ipse dixit however, when making such a serious allegation, it was incumbent upon the Petitioners to establish by giving details as to on what basis such an allegation has been made by the Petitioner. In the present case, we regret to note that not even an attempt to this effect has been made by the Petitioners.
4 Bhagvanji Raiyani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another .
8 of 9
Mugdha
9 PIL 24-04.doc
Court to a monologue, thereby consuming valuable judicial time and resources. It is essential to exercise prudence and diligence in preparing and presenting petitions before the Court, ensuring that they are well-founded and supported by adequate research and compelling arguments, avoiding using intemperate language. It is crucial to maintain respect and professionalism in all legal pleadings, regardless of the nature of the case or the parties involved. The PIL Petitioner must try to understand the relevant legal principles, administrative and constitutional law, and the scope of writ jurisdiction, and if they cannot do so, seek legal assistance. That is so because the judicial system operates with limited time and resources, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs burden the Court and hinder the resolution of other genuine and urgent cases.”
We find the same to be entirely apposite to the facts of the present case as well.
reasons.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
9 of 9
Mugdha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether government advertisements for self-publicity and election prospects, alleged to be false and misleading, are subject to judicial prohibition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.P. Anand, Indore Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda & OthersRelied on¶60
S.P. Anand, Indore Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others (1996) 6 SCC 734 · Who else cites this
Janhit Manch
Union of India
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
