R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, a practising Advocate of this Court has filed this public interest litigation seeking for a direction to the Union of India not to field Sri p. C. Alexander and Sri K. R. Narayanan, for the post of 'president'. He has also sought for a direction to the Union Government for amending Article 54 of the Constitution by providing Judges and Advocates in the electoral college for participation and voting in the presidential elections on par with the Members of Assembly and Members of Parliament. ( 2 ) HEARD the petitioner, party in person and perused the material on record. ( 3 ) OUR Constitution provides for a 'president' in terms of Article 52. Article 53 provides that the executive power of the Union shall be vested with the President. Article 54 provides for election of the President by the elected members of an electoral college consisting of both the Members of the Parliament and the elected Members of the Legislative Assemblies of the State. Article 55 provides for manner of election of president. It provides for an election being held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote and the voting at such election shall be by secret ballot. From a reading of Part V of the Constitution what is clear to us is that no direction as such can be issued in a matter of election to the post of the president by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on these pleadings by this Court. It is for the members of the electoral college to elect a president of their choice. The presidential candidate cannot be altered/changed by way of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner. To say the least petition is merit-less and is liable to be rejected in the light of the constitutional provision. ( 4 ) PETITIONER in this petition has made certain averments against two highly placed dignitaries in support of his contention. At the outset, we express our displeasure the way in which this petition is filed making certain unwarranted averments against two highly placed dignitaries of this country. We deprecate such tendency of filing such public interest litigation making unwarranted averments against those in power. At the outset, we express our displeasure the way in which this petition is filed making certain unwarranted averments against two highly placed dignitaries of this country. We deprecate such tendency of filing such public interest litigation making unwarranted averments against those in power. ( 5 ) TIME and again the Supreme Court has expressed its an guish with regard to public interest litigation system. In the case of Sachidanand pandey v State of West Bengal, has ruled as under:"public interest litigant rush to Court under the attractive name of public interest litigation. It is necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of public interest petitions. It is only when Courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when Courts, especially the Supreme Court should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the underdog and the neglected. The public interest litigants must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion". In the case of Malik Brothers v. Narendra Dadhich and Others, the supreme Court has ruled as under:". . . . . a public interest litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effective access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights. The directions and commands issued by the Courts of law in a public interest litigation are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual. But if the Court finds that in the garb of a public interest litigation actually an individual's interest is sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden duty of the Court not to entertain such petition as otherwise the very purpose of innovation of public interest litigation will be frustrated". Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v Union of India, ruled as under:"public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v Union of India, ruled as under:"public interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of litigation as there was dire need for it. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be co-operative and collaborative effort of the parties and the Court so as to secure justice for the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what words themselves said viz. , "litigation in the interest of the public". There is, in recent years a feeling which is not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. Supreme Court again ruled that judicial inference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the part of the government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the Court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its constitutional or statutory duties". ( 6 ) IN the case on hand, petitioner is unable to show that there is any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. In these circumstances, respectfully following the dictum of the Supreme Court, we reject this petition. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the second prayer is concerned, the said prayer is equally merit-less and it cannot be granted in a writ petition. In these circumstances, respectfully following the dictum of the Supreme Court, we reject this petition. ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the second prayer is concerned, the said prayer is equally merit-less and it cannot be granted in a writ petition. Petitioner factually wants a direction to amend Article 54 of the Constitution. Such direction to amend the Constitution cannot be granted in a writ petition. Even otherwise, the power of including only Judges and lawyers in the electoral college is beyond our imagination. ( 8 ) WE also cannot but observe that this petition is based on the assumption that these dignitaries are to contest the election for which no acceptable material is placed before this Court. ( 9 ) LOOKING from any angle, this petition deserves to be dismissed and we do dismiss the petition without issuing notice to the respondent. With a view to arrest such frivolous writ petitions by way of PIL, we deem it proper to impose costs at Rs. 5,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .