ban against the respondent No.5 and to remove him from the post of President elect within two weeks, failing which necessary legal action would be taken against the respondent No.4 and other associated W.M.A. authorities before an appropriate forum in U.S.A./India or other country(ies) for spreading false information in promoting a tainted doctor and causing deep anguish for the petitioner. As observed by the Supreme Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 333 , PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. Whenever the Courts have interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL, it has always been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage. No such case is made out in the present case.
