The Jharkhand High Court recently underscored the importance of a sincere public-spirited interest for petitioners involved in Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen in a notable case involving potential financial misappropriation, recognized the need for its intervention in matters of public importance, even in the absence of the original petitioner.

In this instance, the court found substantial evidence indicating significant financial irregularities amounting to thousands of crores. Despite recognizing the legitimacy of a PIL in this context, the court decided to remove the original petitioner from the proceedings due to a lack of necessary credentials. Instead, the case was reclassified as "Court on its Own Motion," reflecting the court's independent initiative to address the matter.

The State argued that the petitioner did not possess the essential credentials to maintain the writ application, citing a Supreme Court judgment in the case of "State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022." This judgment emphasized the requirement for a petitioner in a PIL to demonstrate a genuine public-spirited interest.

Addressing concerns about jurisdiction, the State clarified that the Jharkhand High Court has the authority to initiate proceedings suo motu based on credible information, as specified by specific rules. The court referred to legal precedents, such as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union Of India & Ors., 2006, which permitted the transformation of a PIL into a suo motu proceeding in exceptional cases where the petitioner's credentials were questionable.

Additionally, the court cited Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors, 2007, highlighting the court's ability to address matters of public interest even without the original petitioner. Given the potential indications of significant financial misappropriation, the court deemed the case suitable for a PIL but opted to strike the petitioner's name from the record, designating it as a "Court on its Own Motion."

The court scheduled a subsequent hearing in January 2024, during which an amicus curiae would be appointed by the bench.

Case: Arun Kumar Dubey v. The Director & Ors,

W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019.