Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 104 (GAU)

Yunman Lokendro Singh v. State of Manipur

2010-02-11

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT T. NK. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Biramani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, who is a practising advocate, filed the present writ petition styled as "Public Interest Litigation", assailing the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as AYUSH Doctors on the grounds that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have not fulfilled the requisite qualifications inasmuch as they have not completed the compulsory rotating internship of one year after passing the final BHMS examination. 3. The question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether or not the present writ petition, styled as 'Public Interest Litigation', filed by the petitioner assailing the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as AYUSH Doctors by the respondent No. 3, the State Mission Director, State Health Society, Manipur, Imphal, is a 'Public Interest Litigation'. 4. Appendix-28 of the Gauhati High Court Rules reads as follows : APPENDIX-28 Notification dated 1.12.1988 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions received in this Court as public interest litigation. No petition involving individual/personal matter shall be entertained as a PIL matter except as indicated hereinafter. Letters/Petitions falling under the following categories alone will originally be entertained as Public Interest Litigation : 1. Bonded Labour matters. 2. Neglected children. 3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases). 4. Petitions from Jails complaining of harassment, for premature release and seeking release after having completed 14 years in Jail, death in Jail, release on personal bond, speedy trial as a right. 5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody. 6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc. 7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes. 8. Petitions pertaining to environment pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs and food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance. 9. Petitions from plot-victims. 10. Family pension. 8. Petitions pertaining to environment pollution, disturbances of ecological balance, drugs and food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance. 9. Petitions from plot-victims. 10. Family pension. All letter-petitions received in PIL cell will first be screened in the Cell and only such petitions as are covered by the above mentioned categories will be placed before a Judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for directions after which the case will be listed before the Bench concerned. To begin with only one Hon'ble Judge may be assigned this work and the member increased to two or three later depending on the work load. Cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as public interest litigation and these may be returned to the petitioner or filed in the PIL Cell. As the case may be : 1) Landlord-Tenant matters. 2) Service matter and those pertaining to pension and Gratuity. 3) Complaints against Central/State Government Deptts. and local Bodies except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10) above. 4) Admission to medical and other educational institution. 5) Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts. In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance' of the wife, children and parents, the petitioner may be asked to file petition under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure or a suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest Legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice. New Delhi December 1, 1988. 5. As per Appendix-28, guidelines to be followed for entertaining petitions received in this Court as 'public interest litigation', the petition, falling under 'service matters', cannot be treated as 'public interest litigation'. The present case falls under the category of 'service matters', and as such, as per Appendix-28 of the Gauhati High Court Rules, the present writ petition cannot be entertained as 'public interest Litigation'. The concept of 'public interest litigation' as against the rule of locus was evolved by our Courts to help the weaker sections of society, who due to their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, are not able to assert their rights. No doubt, numbers of motivated public interest litigations are outnumbering those filed to serve public interest. The concept of 'public interest litigation' as against the rule of locus was evolved by our Courts to help the weaker sections of society, who due to their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy, are not able to assert their rights. No doubt, numbers of motivated public interest litigations are outnumbering those filed to serve public interest. Justice Arijit Pasayat (as then he was) in M.C. Bhandari Memorial Lecture, : 2002 (7) SCC 1 , termed the 'PIL' as "publicity interest litigation", "private interest litigation", "politics interest litigation" and even "paisa income litigation." 6. Justice Arijit Pasayat (as then he was) in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2005 (1) SCC 590 , observed that when there is material to show that a petition styled as public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation", or the latest trend "paisa income litigation." 7. It appears that the present petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, has no knowledge in the lis of the present writ petition. On 5.10.2009, the respondent No. 3, the State Mission Director, State Health Society, Manipur, Imphal, made an advertisement for appointment of 15 AYUSH Doctors on contract basis for a period upto 28.2.2010, which is extendable depending upon good performance of the doctors. In nowhere of the writ petition, it is mentioned about the constitution and functions of the "State Health Society, Manipur" and also as to whether the respondent No. 3 has the elements of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons, not disclosed in the present writ petition, one Sri Ragesh Keisham, Kwakeithel Lamdong Leikai, Imphal vide his application dated 25.11.2009 approached the Principal, Bengal Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Ismile, PO Asansol for making available the information regarding the passing of final BHMS examinations, internship commencement and completion of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The said letter of Sri Ragesh Keisham, Kwakeithel Lamdong Leikai, Imphal dated 25.11.2009 reads as follows : To The Principal, Bengal Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Ismile, PO Asansol-713301 District-Bardhman (Burdwan), West Bengal. Public Information Officer/RTI Act. 4 to 6. The said letter of Sri Ragesh Keisham, Kwakeithel Lamdong Leikai, Imphal dated 25.11.2009 reads as follows : To The Principal, Bengal Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Ismile, PO Asansol-713301 District-Bardhman (Burdwan), West Bengal. Public Information Officer/RTI Act. Subject : Information request, for providing the information, the details of which are mentioned hereunder. Sir, Kindly furnish me the information which I desire to have access under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 1. The information regarding the passing of final BHMS examinations, internship commencement and completion of the following students in your institution as per available record maintained by your institution : i) Moirangthem Nalindrakumar Kongba Bazaar, Imphal, Manipur. ii) Nangenilhing Laino Lamdangmei Village, Manipur iii) Popa Danlah Robin Chiru Dolang Village, Manipur 2. Please make disclosure as to whether the students in your institution who have not completed internship, are allowed to practise as Homeopathic medical practitioners or not? 3. Please allow me to have access to the disclosure of information as to whether the three persons named above in the particular No. 1 of this application, have completed their internship as per requirement of the rules and regulations governing the conferment of the degree of BHMS. That, I deposit and enclose herewith an IPO of Rs. 10/- as the fee for the application and I request you to be kind enough to furnish me the above information in writing, at an early date and as permissible under the RTI Act, 2005. Yours sincerely, Imphal The 25th November, 2009 Sd/- Regesh Keisham Kwakeithel Lamdong Leikai Imphal-795001, Manipur. 8. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not eligible for appointment as AYUSH Doctor pursuant to the said advertisement dated 5.10.2009 on contract basis. But they were engaged as AYUSH Doctors by the respondent No. 3 without disclosing the number and date of the engagement order. 8. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were not eligible for appointment as AYUSH Doctor pursuant to the said advertisement dated 5.10.2009 on contract basis. But they were engaged as AYUSH Doctors by the respondent No. 3 without disclosing the number and date of the engagement order. In the present writ petition, it has also been stated that the petitioner, from reliable sources, came to know that there were several other qualified BHMS Degree holders who applied/offered as candidates in response to the Advertisement dated 5th October, 2009 and also that the procedure followed by the respondent No. 3, leading to the engagement of the private respondents, was not fair and proper and, as such, the said engagements deprive the fundamental rights of the qualified BHMS Degree holders as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. On perusal of the pleadings in the present writ petition as a whole, it is crystal clear that the practising lawyer i.e. the present writ petitioner, is filing writ petition for assailing the appointments of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 6, by alleging that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are not eligible for appointment/engagement as AYUSH doctors, who said to have applied/offered as candidates in response to the said applied/offered as candidates in response to the said advertisement dated 5.10.2009. 10. Orissa Administrative Tribunal, in Amitarani Khuntia v. State of Orissa 1996 (I) OLR 2, was of the view that a private citizen or a stranger having no existing right to any post and not intrinsically concerned with any service matter is not entitled to approach the Tribunal. The views of the Tribunal in Amitarani Khuntia's case (supra) had been considered by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. 1998 (7) SCC 273 and held that PIL preferred before CAT by private persons for quashing an order of Government creating one more post of Junior Teacher (Lecturer) in Surgical Gastroenterology in medical college, for debarring the appellant from being appointed to that post and for preventing the Govt. from appointing any candidate as Lecturer without requisite qualification and training in the super-speciality, is not maintainable. Therefore, the ratio in Dr. from appointing any candidate as Lecturer without requisite qualification and training in the super-speciality, is not maintainable. Therefore, the ratio in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu's case (supra), is that the petition challenging the appointment of the person for the reason that the person concerned has no requisite qualifications, training in super-specialty cannot be treated as public interest litigation. 11. Before admitting the PIL, 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; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show the gravity and seriousness involved. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before Court and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful thinking and the credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials averred and not even on the credentials claimed of the person moving the Courts in such cases. Further, in admitting the PIL, the Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests. 12. The Apex Court, in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 363 , held that in the petition purported to have been filed questioning the propriety of respondent No. 3 being considered for appointment as a Judge, the allegation/information mentioned in the petition against the respondent No. 3 should not be frivolous one not supported by material evidence. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. Para Nos. 4, 12, 14 and relevant portion of para 21 in Dr. B. Singh's case (supra) read as follows : 4. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. Para Nos. 4, 12, 14 and relevant portion of para 21 in Dr. B. Singh's case (supra) read as follows : 4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes or vendetta to bring to terms a person, not of one's liking, or gain publicity or a facade for blackmail, the said petition has to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issues involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding the "public interest" aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not properly and strictly regulated at least in certain vital areas or spheres and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well as to malign not only an incumbent-to-be in office but demoralize and deter reasonable or sensible and prudent people even agreeing to accept highly sensitive and responsible officers for fear of being brought into disrepute with baseless allegations. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and concrete or credible basis for maintaining a cause before Court and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigation by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. The credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the credit-worthiness of the materials averred and not even on the Courts in such cases. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 873. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. (See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand 1994 (6) SCC 620 . 12. 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-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 attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to 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. As indicated above, Courts must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs. 14. 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; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a 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. 21. ...The note of caution has yielded no fruitful result and on the contrary these busybodies continue to make reckless allegations and vitriolic statements against Judges and persons whose names are under consideration for Judgeship. Therefore, it has become imperative to take stern action against these persons. It is not the ipse dixit of any individual to say as to whether the recommended person is fit for appointment, by making wild allegation, which has become common these days, and has resulted in delaying appointment of Judges, though a large number of vacancies exist in different High Courts. All possible care and caution is exercised before appointment of a Judge is made. All possible care and caution is exercised before appointment of a Judge is made. It is true that no system is infallible, but at the same time the sinister design of people intended to thwart the prospects of a person likely to be appointed as a Judge has to be nipped in the bud. The petitioner has not shown any material to show that he is really interested in the welfare of the judicial system or the institution of the Judiciary. As indicated above, he appears to be a busy person seeking publicity and a person who has no genuine concern for the institution. If such type of petitioners are permitted to be entertained it will cause immense damage to the system itself. High-sounding words used in the petition about the desirability of a transparent judicial system cannot in our view turn a misconceived petition filed with oblique motives to be treated as a public interest litigation. This petition deserved to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000 hoping that the petitioner would mend his ways and would not hazard such vexatious litigations in future dismiss the same with costs of Rs. 10,000 which the petitioner shall deposit in the Registry of this Court within six weeks from today. If deposit is made, it shall be remitted to the Supreme Court Legal Service Authority. In case the cost is not deposited within the time stipulated, the Registry shall forward this order to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the High Court shall have it recovered by coercive means of recovery and remit the same to this Court, which on receipt shall be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority. 13. The Apex Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2005 (1) SCC 590 , had imposed that a costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner, a lawyer, who filed the petition styled as 'public interest litigation', after holding that there was no public interest involved and, in fact, the petitioner had resorted to blackmailing the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the said cost of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the affected respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Para Nos. 3, 4, 14, 17 and 20 of the SCC in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware'scase (supra) reads as follows : 3. 6 and 7 and the said cost of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the affected respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Para Nos. 3, 4, 14, 17 and 20 of the SCC in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware'scase (supra) reads as follows : 3. It is, in fact, a black day for the black-robed professionals, if the allegations, as found by the. High Court to be true and which presently appear to be the subject- matter of further proceedings in a criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal profession black-faced for the black deed of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black sheep in the profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive brand name of "public interest litigation", the least that can be said is that it smacks of everything what a public interest litigation should not be. (emphasis supplied) 4. When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Before we grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigations by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigations by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for persona gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 873. A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest comes to the Court only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean hear, clean mind and clean objective. [See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 : AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand 1994 (6) SCC 620 ]. 14. 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; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a 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. 17. 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. 17. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87 it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of P1L does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigation. It has also left the following note of caution : SCC p. 219, para 24. 24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the Court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective. 20. It is a disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations to see that the process of. law is not abused and polluted by its members. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Association 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". That will be keeping in line with the high traditions of the Bar. No one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further cost. (emphasis supplied) 14. The Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. 2010 (1) SCALE 492 had discussed the origin of public interest and evolution of the public interest litigation in India and issued certain directions to the High Court. 25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further cost. (emphasis supplied) 14. The Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. 2010 (1) SCALE 492 had discussed the origin of public interest and evolution of the public interest litigation in India and issued certain directions to the High Court. In that case, the petitioner, one of them is an advocate invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court filed a petition styled as public interest litigation questioning the appointment of the learned Advocate General of the State of Uttaranchal and the Apex Court had dismissed the PIL with the costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh). Para Nos. 31 to 46 and para Nos. 192 to 199 of the Scale in Balwant Singh Chaafal's case, (supra) are quoted hereunder : Origin of Public Interest Litigation : 31. The public interest litigation is the product of realization of the constitutional obligation of the Court. 32. All these petitions are filed under the big banner of the public interest litigation. In this view of the matter, it has become imperative to examine what are the contours of the public interest litigation? What is the utility and importance of the public interest litigation? Whether similar jurisdiction exists in other countries or this is an indigenously developed jurisprudence? Looking to the special conditions prevalent in our country, whether the pubic interest litigation should be encouraged or discouraged by the Courts? These are some of the questions which we would endeavour to answer in this judgment. 33. According to our opinion, the public interest litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Courts in a number of cases have given important directions and passed orders which have brought positive changes in the country. The Court's directions have immensely benefited marginalized sections of the society in a number of cases. It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forest, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. The Court's directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life. 34. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review realized that a very large section of the society because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they have no access to justice. The Court's directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in the public life. 34. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review realized that a very large section of the society because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they have no access to justice. Predominantly, to provide access to justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society, this Court has initiated, encouraged and propelled the public interest litigation. The litigation is upshot and product of this Court's deep and intense urge to fulfill its bounded duty and constitutional obligation. 35. The High Court followed this Court and exercised similar jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. The Courts expended the meaning of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The rules of locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of 'aggrieved person' was broadened to provide access to justice to a very large section of the society which was otherwise not getting any benefit from the judicial system. We would like to term this as the first phase or the golden era of the public interest litigation. We would briefly deal with important cases decided by this Court in the first phase after broadening the definition of 'aggrieved person'. We would also deal with cases how this Court prevented any abuse of the public interest litigation? 36. This Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 298 , held that our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation', and 'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concepts of 'cause of action', 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation are becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. 37. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concepts of 'cause of action', 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation are becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. 37. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 802 , this Court entertained a petition even of unregistered Association espousing the cause of over down-trodden or its members observing that the cause of "little Indians" can be espoused by any person having no interest in the matter. 38. In the said case, this Court further held that where a public interest litigation alleging that certain workmen are living in bondage and under inhuman conditions is initiated it is not expected of the Government that is should raise preliminary objection that no fundamental rights of the petitioners or the workmen on whose behalf the petition has been filed, have been infringed. On contrary, the Government should welcome an inquiry by the Court so that if it is found that there are in fact bonded labourers or even if the Workers are not bonded in the strict sense of the term as defined in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 but they are made to provide forced labour or any consigned to a life of utter deprivation and degradation, such a situation can be set right by the Government. 39. Public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the down-trodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing allusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the; weaker sections their rights and entitlements. 40. 40. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 844, this Court observed that "public interest litigation is part of the process of participative justice and 'standing' in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps." 41. In Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 549 , this Court observed that the public interest litigation is for making basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social, economic and political justice. EVOLUTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA 42. The origin and evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India emanated from realization of constitutional obligation by the Judiciary towards the vast sections of the society-the poor and the marginalized sections of the society. This jurisdiction has been created and carved out by the judicial creativity and craftsmanship. In M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1086 , this Court observed that Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue direction, order or writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Instead, it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people. The Court asserted that, in realization of this constitutional obligation, "it has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental rights". The Court realized that because of extreme poverty, a large number of sections of society cannot approach the Court. The fundamental rights have no meaning for them and in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of the marginalized section of society by judicial innovation, the Courts by judicial innovation and creativity started giving necessary directions and passing orders in the public interest. 43. The development of public interest litigation has been extremely significant development in the history of the Indian jurisprudence. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1970's loosened the strict locus standi requirements to permit filing of petitions on behalf of marginalized and deprived sections of the society by public spirited individuals, institutions and/or bodies. The higher Courts exercised wide powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1970's loosened the strict locus standi requirements to permit filing of petitions on behalf of marginalized and deprived sections of the society by public spirited individuals, institutions and/or bodies. The higher Courts exercised wide powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The sort of remedies sought from the Courts in the public interest litigation goes beyond award of remedies to the affected individual and groups. In suitable cases, the Courts have also given guidelines and directions. The Courts have monitored implementation of legislation and even formulated guidelines in absence of legislation. If the cases of the decades of 70s and 80s are analyzed, most of the public interest litigation cases which were entertained by the Courts are pertaining to enforcement of fundamental rights of marginalized and deprived sections of the society. This can be termed as the first phase of the public interest litigation in India. 44. The Indian Supreme Court broadened the traditional rule of standing and the definition of "person aggrieved". 45. In this judgment, we would like to deal with the origin and development of public interest litigation. We deem fit appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases. * Phase-I : It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts. * Phase-II : It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc. * Phase-III : It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance. 46. Thereafter, we also propose to deal with the aspects of abuse of the Public Interest Litigation and remedial measures by which its misuse can be presented or curbed. 192. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeals filed by the State and quash the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001 filed in the Uttaranchal High Court. We further direct that the respondents (who were the petitioners before the High Court) to pay costs of Rs. We further direct that the respondents (who were the petitioners before the High Court) to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) in the name of Registrar General of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The costs to be paid by the respondents within two months. If the costs is not deposited within two months, the same would be recovered as the arrears of the Land Revenue. 193. We request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court to create a fund in the name of Uttarakhand High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund if not already in existence. The fund could be utilized for providing necessary help to deserving young lawyers by the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand in consultation with the President of the Bar. 194. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to Us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the Courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the Courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the Laws. 195. The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on account of Courts direction in the PIL. 196. In our considered view, now it has become imperative to streamline the PIL. 197. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this Court and other Courts in a number of judgments. 198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions : (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions : (1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations. 199. Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts within one week. 15. Mr. H. Biramani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing heavy reliance on the decision of the M/s. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3266 , contended that in a public interest litigation, locus standi of filing the writ petition has a little role to play. 15. Mr. H. Biramani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing heavy reliance on the decision of the M/s. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3266 , contended that in a public interest litigation, locus standi of filing the writ petition has a little role to play. But this Court is of the considered view that, even though, concept of locus standi has a little role to play in public interest litigation, the petitioner filing the petition as public interest litigation should satisfy about : (a) the credentials of the applicant/petitioner, (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite and the real and genuine public interest is involved in the litigation, and also the credibility of such claims or litigations should be adjudged on the creditworthiness of the materials averred. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Over and above, the petitioner, who comes to the Court for relief in public interest, must come not only with clean hands but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. 16. We, keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, in our anxious consideration of the case pleaded by the writ petitioner seeking the relief for quashing the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as AYUSH Doctor in the style of public interest litigation, are of the firm view that the present writ petition (PIL) has no material for a public interest litigation. For maintaining the high tradition of the Bar, no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession and, accordingly, we impose an exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) to the writ petitioner: 17. Accordingly, this writ petition (PIL) is dismissed with an exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand). The cost of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) should be levied by the All Manipur Bar Association, Manipur from the writ petitioner and shall deposit the same in their fund. 18. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) to the writ petitioner: 17. Accordingly, this writ petition (PIL) is dismissed with an exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand). The cost of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) should be levied by the All Manipur Bar Association, Manipur from the writ petitioner and shall deposit the same in their fund. 18. Copies of the judgment be sent to the General Secretary, All Manipur Bar Association, Manipur and also the Secretary, High Court Bar Association, Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, within four days. Petition dismissed.