On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court rejected a Criminal Public Interest Litigation that had requested the filing of an FIR regarding an alleged scam across 15 municipal wards.

The division bench of the high court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, rejected the PIL, asserting that the petitioner had a viable recourse under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“The perusal of prayer reveals that petitioner is seeking direction to lodge FIR. For said purpose, the petitioner is advised to take recourse to 156(3). Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain PIL. Dismissed,” the order reads.

In the PIL's cause title, the petitioner, identified as a businessman, asserted to be a reporter in the pleadings presented to the court, relying on an inquiry report that alleged violations in buildings across 15 municipal wards of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

Following the high court's observation, the advocate representing the petitioner acknowledged the issue and assured that it would be rectified. Nonetheless, the division bench cautioned against the casual use of terms like 'scam,' highlighting their prevalence as trendy expressions. They emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and urged the petitioner not to trivialize the legal process.

“As per high court rules you have to give undertaking and disclosures. This creates doubt. There is a contradiction. You are describing yourself as a businessman, you are submitting yourself that you are a reporter. The words ‘scam’ have become fashionable. This has happened and that has happened. We are not satisfied, we are not sitting here as police officers. Do not make a mockery of PILs. We have been requesting everyone to maintain the sanctity of PILs," the court said.

Special Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state government, suggested that the petitioner could pursue available legal avenues under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to address their grievances.

Accordingly, the bench proceeded to dismiss the Public Interest Litigation.