In a recent judicial decision, the Delhi High Court rendered a verdict that rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) while emphasizing the vital need for filing such petitions with genuine intentions and without exploiting them for personal gain.

The petitioner in question, Ms. Sabiha Parveen, had launched a PIL aimed at addressing illegal and unauthorized construction. In her legal document, she explicitly stated that she had no personal interest in the matter, underscoring the public welfare aspect of her petition.

However, it later came to light that the petitioner and one of the respondents, who happened to be the owner of the property under scrutiny, were closely related as first cousins. The respondent alleged the existence of a family dispute and claimed that the petitioner had demanded a significant sum of money from him. Notably, the petitioner had not disclosed this familial connection in her initial submissions.

The crux of the petitioner's argument centered on her assertion that her PIL was driven by a sincere concern for the greater good and devoid of any self-serving motives. She argued that the construction under scrutiny was unlawful and unauthorized, underscoring the importance of government authorities taking appropriate action.

On the contrary, the respondent argued that the petitioner had concealed her family relationship with him and had a personal stake in the case, essentially using the PIL as a means to settle a family dispute. He pointed out that the petitioner had been making substantial financial demands from him, which indicated a personal interest in the matter.

The court referenced its previous judgment in the case of New Rise Foundation Reg. Charitable Trust v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Ors. (W.P. (C) 11285/2022) to underscore the principle that individuals who approach the court with dishonesty and withhold crucial information are not entitled to any legal remedy. In that prior case, a PIL requesting the demolition of a property was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay a substantial fine.

The court expressed concerns about the proliferation of frivolous PILs and the burden they place on the judicial system, especially when cases involving personal liberty are awaiting resolution. It emphasized the importance of PILs being a source of trust and confidence for both the courts and the general public while upholding the rule of law.

The Delhi High Court ruled to reject the PIL and imposed a fine on the petitioner. The court ordered the petitioner to make this payment to the Army Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within 30 days. While the court opted not to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner due to her gender, it issued a stern warning against the filing of frivolous PILs that involve the suppression of crucial information.

Case: Ms. Sabiha Parveen vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors, W.P.(C) 11646/2023.