Você está na página 1de 11

1

Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2967 of 2014
Petitioner :- Dr. Nutan Thakur [P.I.L.]
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Secy.Ministry Of Home
Affairs,N.Delhi
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.Nutan Thakur (Inperson
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Alok Mathur
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
1.

We have heard Dr. Nutan Thakur, the petitioner appearing in

person in this public interest litigation. Sri Alok Mathur appears for
respondents.
2.

By this writ petition, filed in public interest, Dr. Nutan Thakur,

appearing in person, has challenged the validity of the Special


Protection Group Act 1988, enacted for the constitution and
regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate
security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of
India and members of their immediate families and for matters
connected therewith.
3. It is alleged that providing security under the Special Protection
Group Act to the Prime Minister, former Primer Ministers and their
immediate family members is discriminatory as it provides for
protection to a limited set of people, in all circumstances whether
they actually need or deserve such protection or not; it is thus prima
facie ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Central
Government is required to follow a policy where security needs of
Prime Ministers, Ex-Prime Ministers and their family members is
evaluated on a case to case basis through any prescribed method.
There are large number of persons who are important to the country
and are holding constitutional posts. They also require similar
protection.
4.

We find that the writ petition is entirely baseless, and has been

filed with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity. The petitioner


does not appear to have the locus and understanding of the

2
importance of security which is required to be provided to the Prime
Minister, former Primer Ministers and their family members. After
assassination of the former Prime Ministers of the country, the
Special Security Group Act was enacted, to protect the highest
public executive functionary of the country from threats extended by
terrorist organizations.

The importance of this Act cannot be

overstated. The Act itself provides in the proviso to Section 4 (1) and
Section 4(1A) of the assessment of level of threat periodically for
continuing the security and the guidelines for such assessment. We
thus find the challenge of the Act, as ultra vires to Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, is entirely baseless and frivolous.
5. We are informed, and are confirmed by Dr. Nutan Thakur the
petitioner appearing in person that she has filed about 140 writ
petitions under the category of public interest litigation.

She

appears in Court almost every day, for these matters. She has
become a self-styled PIL specialist, and her name regularly appears
in news papers. Some of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner
have been entertained by this Court. Even her husband, a serving
IPS Officer of IG rank indulges in filing writ petitions in public interest
numbering more than 20 upto the beginning of this month. Together
the petitioner and husband have filed 160 writ petitions in purported
public interest matters in last three to four years
6. The Registry has supplied a list of 86 cases, which have been
filed by the petitioner Dr. Nutan Thakur in person, in which she is
the first petitioner, which is extracted as under:Sl no. Case No./Year

Pet Adv

Res Adv

Status[Last Listed]

=======================================================================
1.

CONT 1998-2010

NUTAN THAKUR

CSC

Disposed[04/01/2011]

2.

CONT 1097-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

Disposed[16/05/2012]

3.

CONT 1170-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

Disposed[23/05/2012]

4.

CONT 2739-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

Disposed[18/10/2012]

5.

CONT 935-2013

NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)

6.

CONT 2865-2013

DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

7. MISB 8305-2010
8.

K K SHARMA Disposed[08/07/2013]
Pending[24/02/2014]

NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON ) MANISH KUMAR

MISB 11447-2010 NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON)

P.N.GUPTA

Disposed[25/08/2010]

Pending[15/02/2011]

3
9.

MISB 11842-2011 DR.NUTAN THAKUR [INPERSON

G.A.

Disposed[04/07/2013]

A.S.G.

Disposed[17/01/2012]

10. MISB 479-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

11. MISB 1361-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

O.P.SRIVASTAVA

Disposed[16/02/2012]

12. MISB 1574-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[26/03/2012]

13. MISB 1949-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR

14. MISB 1999-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

15. MISB 2425-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[15/10/2012]

16. MISB 2589-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

C.S.C.

Pending[15/10/2012]

17. MISB 2685-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

A.S.G.

Disposed[10/04/2012]

18. MISB 3233-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

A.S.G.
C.S.C.

Disposed[15/03/2012]
Disposed[26/03/2012]

BIRESHWAR NATH Disposed[01/05/2012]

19. MISB 3640-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[01/01/1900]

20. MISB 6053-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[16/10/2012]

21. MISB 7364-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR [INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[15/07/2013]

22. MISB 7427-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

C.S.C.

Pending[29/08/2013]

23. MISB 7596-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[15/10/2012]

24. MISB 9431-2012

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[08/11/2012]

25. MISB 133-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[08/01/2013]

26. MISB 259-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPRSON]

C.S.C.

Pending[19/04/2013]

27. MISB 360-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[23/04/2014]

28. MISB 446-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[21/01/2013]

29. MISB 834-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[30/01/2013]

30. MISB 882-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

GOVT.ADVOCATE Pending[05/10/2013]

31. MISB 1147-2013

DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[14/02/2014]

32. MISB 1587-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[02/05/2013]

33. MISB 1748-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[22/08/2013]

34. MISB 2174-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[13/03/2013]

35. MISB 2717-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[02/09/2013]

36. MISB 2732-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[03/04/2013]

37. MISB 3327-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[23/04/2013]

38. MISB 3493-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[01/01/1900]

39. MISB 3572-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[30/04/2013]

40. MISB 3818-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[17/04/2014]

41. MISB 3885-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[13/05/2013]

42. MISB 4574-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

43. MISB 5927-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[11/07/2013]

44. MISB 6509-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[01/01/1900]

45. MISB 7218-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[28/10/2013]

46. MISB 7295-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

47. MISB 7674-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[03/09/2013]

48. MISB 7955-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[ / /

49. MISB 8497-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[24/09/2013]

Disposed[01/07/2013]

Pending[ / /

]
]

4
50. MISB 8502-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

Disposed[19/09/2013]

51. MISB 8764-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[25/09/2013]

52. MISB 8802-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

A.S.G.

Disposed[25/09/2013]

53. MISB 9318-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSONMANISH MATHUR Disposed[07/10/2013]


54. MISB 9493-2013

DR NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[28/01/2014]

55. MISB 9587-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[08/11/2013]

56. MISB 9976-2013

DR NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

A.S.G.

Pending[12/12/2013]

57. MISB 10159-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[30/10/2013]

58. MISB 10714-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[27/01/2014]

59. MISB 10734-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[19/11/2013]

60. MISB 10994-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

Disposed[26/11/2013]

61.MISB 11325-2013DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON LALIT SHUKLA Disposed[04/12/2013]


62. MISB 11796-2013 DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[17/12/2013]

63. MISB 480-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[17/02/2014]

64. MISB 607-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[29/01/2014]

65. MISB 624-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[29/01/2014]

66. MISB 649-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Disposed[11/02/2014]

67. MISB 735-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

S.M.RAYEKWAR Pending[ / / ]

68. MISB 1137-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

A.S.G.

Disposed[19/02/2014]

69. MISB 1239-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Disposed[14/02/2014]

70. MISB 1518-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[ / /

71. MISB 1602-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[11/04/2014]

72. MISB 1890-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[01/01/1900]

73. MISB 2008-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

Pending[ / /

74. MISB 2367-2014

NUTAN THAKUR (IN PERSON)

Pending[ / / ]

75. MISB 2530-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

76. MISB 2761-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

C.S.C.

Pending[22/04/2014]

MANISH KUMAR Pending[ ]

77. MISB 2967-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

A.S.G.

Pending[11/04/2014]

78. REVP 552-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

Disposed[03/10/2013]

79. REVP 553-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

Disposed[03/10/2013]

80. REVP 604-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

Disposed[22/10/2013]

81. REVP 627-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(IN PERSON

Disposed[31/10/2013]

82. REVP 658-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR(INPERSON)

Pending[06/12/2013]

83. REVP 69-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

Disposed[07/02/2014]

84. REVP 74-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR (INPERSON

Disposed[07/02/2014]

85. REVP 325-2014

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

Pending[ / /

86. REVPD563-2013

DR.NUTAN THAKUR[INPERSON]

Disposed[22/11/2013]

7. In State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and ors 2010 (3) SCC
402 the Supreme Court, after considering the evolution of public interest
litigation in India and laying down its importance, expressed a note of caution

5
about its abuse. The Supreme Court held in paragraphs 161 to 188 as follows:161. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an
important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created
and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being
blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We
think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest
litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest
litigation should be discouraged.
162. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve
this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this
country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its
abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions by
the courts.
163. In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India &
Others AIR 2002 SC 350, this Court recognized that there have
been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of public
interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of
strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious
products of mischief. Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited
standing in PIL to individuals "acting bonafide." Secondly, the
Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary costs"
as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest
litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High
Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest
litigations.
164. In S. P. Gupta's case (supra), this Court has found that this
liberal standard makes it critical to limit standing to individuals
"acting bona fide. To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious
petitions under the guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two
groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First,
the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to
"meddlesome interlopers". Second, the Court has denied standing
to interveners bringing public interest litigation for personal gain.
165. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra), the
Court withheld standing from the applicant on grounds that the
applicant brought the suit motivated by enmity between the parties.
Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of
jurisprudence that accords broad enough standing to admit
genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless limits standing to thwart
frivolous and vexations petitions.
166. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public
interest litigation petitions by two methods - one monetary and
second, non-monetary. The first category of cases is that where
the court on filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions,
dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of
Pubjab & Others AIR 2007 SC 758, the Court concluded that it is
necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message
goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do
not have the approval of the Courts.
167. In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others AIR 1997 SC

6
272, the Court warned that it is of utmost importance that those
who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a waiver of the
locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not
plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed.
168. In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India & Others AIR 2005 SC
2841, this Court went a step further by imposing a monetary
penalty against an Advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL
petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid of public
interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation."
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
169. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra
& Others (2005) 1 SCC 590, the Supreme Court affirmed the High
Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a
frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. This Court found that the
petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute.
Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the
noble profession, the Court concluded that the imposition of the
penalty of Rs. 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently,
the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the
imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious
PIL petitions, especially when filed by Advocates.
170. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed
harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh &
Another AIR 1984 SC 309, the Supreme Court observed that, "we
would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against
the two petitioners" for filing a "light-hearted and indifferent" PIL
petition. However, to prevent "nipping in the bud a well-founded
claim on a future occasion," the Court opted against imposing
monetary costs on the petitioners." In this case, this Court
concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and
against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to
initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry
from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner,
who was an advocate in this case.
171. In J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others (1999)
1 SCC 53, this court laid down that public interest litigation can be
filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any
public property including the political party in power for the reason
that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a
larger public interest.
172. This court has been quite conscious that the forum of this
court should not be abused by any one for personal gain or for any
oblique motive.
173. In BALCO (supra), this court held that the jurisdiction is being
abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain.
Therefore, the court must take care that the forum be not abused
by any person for personal gain.
174. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra), this court expressed its
anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of
public interest litigation and observed that the public interest
litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and

7
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is
to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for
delivering social justice to the citizens. The court must not allow its
process to be abused for oblique considerations.
175. In Thaware's case (supra), the Court encouraged the
imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by
a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar
Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party
as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions
carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This
direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar
members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.
176. In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra &
Others AIR 2008 SC 913, this Court observed as under:
`It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are
wasted, the time which otherwise could have been spent for
disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no
efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and
extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the
oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed
and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented
and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that
while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil
matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees
and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing
gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons
suffering from undue delay in service matters -government or
private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge
amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax
amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine
queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and
having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome
interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no
public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of
themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous
motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their
faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into
the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus
criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of
which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never
moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of
the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the
administration of our judicial system."
The Court cautioned by observing that:
"Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public
interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity

8
seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The
attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity
oriented or founded on personal vendetta.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the
applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information
given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.
The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.
Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i)
nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance
of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such
case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be
extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the
Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to
act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or
meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in
the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect."
177. The malice of frivolous and vexatious petitions did not
originate in India. The jurisprudence developed by the Indian
judiciary regarding the imposition of exemplary costs upon
frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions is consistent with
jurisprudence developed in other countries. U.S. Federal Courts
and Canadian Courts have also imposed monetary penalties upon
public interest claims regarded as frivolous. The courts also
imposed non-monetary penalties upon Advocates for filing frivolous
claims. In Everywoman's Health Centre Society v. Bridges 54
B.C.L.R. (2nd Edn.) 294, the British Columbia Court of Appeal
granted special costs against the Appellants for bringing a
meritless appeal.
178. U.S. Federal Courts too have imposed monetary penalties
against plaintiffs for bringing frivolous public interest claims. Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") permits Courts
to apply an "appropriate sanction" on any party for filing frivolous
claims. Federal Courts have relied on this rule to impose monetary
penalties upon frivolous public interest claims. For example, in
Harris v. Marsh 679 F.Supp. 1204 (E.D.N.C. 1987), the District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina imposed a
monetary sanction upon two civil rights plaintiffs for bringing a
frivolous, vexatious, and meritless employment discrimination
claim. The Court explained that "the increasingly crowded dockets
of the federal courts cannot accept or tolerate the heavy burden
posed by factually baseless and claims that drain judicial
resources." As a deterrent against such wasteful claims, the Court
levied a cost of $83,913.62 upon two individual civil rights plaintiffs

9
and their legal counsel for abusing the judicial process. Case law
in Canadian Courts and U.S. Federal Courts exhibits that the
imposition of monetary penalties upon frivolous public interest
claims is not unique to Indian jurisprudence.
179. Additionally, U.S. Federal Courts have imposed nonmonetary penalties upon Attorneys for bringing frivolous claims.
Federal rules and case law leave the door open for such nonmonetary penalties to be applied equally in private claims and
public interest claims. Rule 11 of the FRCP additionally permits
Courts to apply an "appropriate sanction" on Attorneys for filing
frivolous claims on behalf of their clients. U.S. Federal Courts have
imposed non-monetary sanctions upon Attorneys for bringing
frivolous claims under Rule 11.
180. In Frye v. Pena 199 F.3d 1332 (Table), 1999 WL 974170, for
example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's order to disbar an Attorney for having
"brought and pressed frivolous claims, made personal attacks on
various government officials in bad faith and for the purpose of
harassment, and demonstrated a lack of candor to, and contempt
for, the court." This judicial stance endorses the ethical obligation
embodied in Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct
("MRPC"): "a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or
assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law
and fact for doing so that is not frivolous." Together, the FRCP, U.S.
federal case law, and the MRPC endorse the imposition of nonmonetary penalties upon attorneys for bringing frivolous private
claims or public interest claims.
181. In Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) this court was
apprehensive that by widening the legal standing there may be
flood of litigation but loosening the definition is also essential in the
larger public interest. To arrest the mischief is the obligation and
tribute to the judicial system.
182. In SP Gupta (supra) the court cautioned that important
jurisdiction of public interest litigation may be confined to legal
wrongs and legal injuries for a group of people or class of persons.
It should not be used for individual wrongs because individuals can
always seek redress from legal aid organizations. This is a matter
of prudence and not as a rule of law.
183. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra) this
court again emphasized that Article 32 is a great and salutary
safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens.
The superior courts have to ensure that this weapon under Article
32 should not be misused or abused by any individual or
organization.
184. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Others (1992) 4 SCC 305,
the court rightly cautioned that expanded role of courts in modern
`social' state demand for greater judicial responsibility. The PIL has
given new hope of justice-starved millions of people of this country.
The court must encourage genuine PIL and discard PIL filed with
oblique motives.
185. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Another v.
C.K. Rajan & Others (2003) 7 SCC 546, it was reiterated that the

10
court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to
prevent abuse of the process, the court would be justified in
insisting on furnishing of security before granting injunction in
appropriate cases. The courts may impose heavy costs to ensure
that judicial process is not misused.
186. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) this court again cautioned
and observed that the court must look into the petition carefully
and ensure that there is genuine public interest involved in the
case before invoking its jurisdiction. The court should be careful
that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person or a body of persons
to further his or their personal causes or to satisfy his or their
personal grudge or grudges. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
187. In Neetu (supra) this court observed that under the guise of
redressing a public grievance the public interest litigation should
not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature.
188. In M/s. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this court observed
that the judges who exercise the jurisdiction should be extremely
careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity- seeking is not lurking. The
court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the
court.

8.

In many of the files of public interest litigation filed by the

petitioner, examined by the Court, we find that the petitioner has


raised issues within a few days when any social or political issue
attracts the attention of the media. Almost all the writ petitions are
filed without any research or material and based only on the
newspaper reports. The petitioner appears to have a permanent
presence before the Bench hearing public interest litigation matters.
It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders that
the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such
petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving
other important matters.
9. Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not
in public interest. These writ petitions have been filed covering
almost every subject covered by media

to be topical mostly

concerning social, political economic or commercial interest. She


has also allowed her children, still minor in filing writ petitions; the
last one concerning the decision of the Central government
awarding Bharat Ratna awards. Almost every subject under the sun

11
which attracts her imagination becomes a subject matter of public
Interest Litigation..
10. In order to save this Court from the tsunami of writ petitions
filed by the petitioner who appear almost every other day in Court
touching

matters which hits the headline, treating it as public

interest, we find it appropriate to direct that hence forth the registry


of the Court will not entertain any writ petition in public interest from
Dr Nutan Thakur either in person or though counsel (either as
petitioner or co-petitioner) unless the petition, filed by her,
accompanies a demand of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). At
the time of admission of the writ petition, if the Court considers that
the petitioner has raised a matter which is genuine and bonafide in
public interest, the demand draft deposited by her may be returned
to her. In case it is found by the Court that the Writ Petition filed by
her does not involve any public interest and the writ petition is
dismissed, the amount in the demand draft deposited by her will be
treated as costs imposed on her, and the amount will be credited in
the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee at
Lucknow to be spent for activities of the Legal Services Committee
of the High Court.
11. The writ petition is dismissed, with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be
paid by the petitioner appear in person to be deposited by her within
a month with Senior Registrar, High Court at Lucknow, failingwhich
it will realized from her by the District Magistrate, Lucknow with one
month thereafter for which the demand will be sent by the Senior
Registrar, subject to deposit made by her within within one month
12. Let a copy of this order be given to Senior Registrar of the
Court, learned Chief Standing Counsel and the learned Assistant
Solicitor General of India.
Order Date :- 11.04.2014
Nethra