The Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, has levied a fine of Rs. 50,000 on a litigant for submitting a private interest litigation under the guise of a public interest litigation.

“In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court.''

The petitioner in question sought the removal of purportedly illegal encroachments on specific land in District Shamli. Alleging that numerous litigations were underway to address these encroachments, the petitioner accused the authorities of inaction on the issue. Identifying as a permanent resident of District Shamli, the petitioner expressed their intention to address societal issues and rectify irregularities allegedly perpetrated by the authorities.

During the proceedings, Advocate Gaurav Tripathi, representing the respondent, raised an objection concerning the petitioner's credentials. He argued that the petitioner had failed to disclose this information as required under Chapter XXII, Rule 1 (3-A) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Court noted that there were already ongoing petitions related to disputes over the property in question between the petitioner and others before the High Court. Furthermore, the Court observed that FIRs had been filed between the parties regarding business disputes.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had not disclosed the litigation with the private respondents in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), thereby suggesting a concealment of relevant information.

In its decision, the Court cited the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), where the Supreme Court provided directives for the filing and handling of public interest litigations. These directives emphasized the importance of disclosing the credentials of the litigant adequately. The Court stressed that before entertaining such petitions, it must be thoroughly convinced that substantial public interest is at stake. These guidelines served as a framework for ensuring transparency and legitimacy in public interest litigation proceedings.

In furtherance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 were amended to include sub-Rule (3-A) in Rule 1 of Chapter XXII to add:

"Petitioner seeking to file a Public Interest Litigation, should precisely and specifically state, in the affidavit to be sworn by him giving his credentials, the public cause he is seeking to espouse

The Court further noted that apart from the aforementioned rule, the Allahabad High Court Rules also mandated the disclosure of any ongoing proceedings. The Court emphasized that if the requirements outlined in the Rule of 1952 are not met, the High Court is duty-bound to address such non-compliance. This underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring transparency in legal proceedings.

Drawing upon various precedents set by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated the principle that a litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands or seeks to obstruct the course of justice is not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner. The sum was directed to be deposited with the Old Age Home in Prayagraj, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and deterring frivolous or deceptive litigation practices.

Case Title: Akbar Abbass Zaidi v. State Of U.P And Others [PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 163 of 2024]

Counsel for Respondent: Gaurav Tripathi, Irfan Chaudhary

Counsel for Petitioner: Priyavrat Tripathi, Ram Adhar Yadav