JUDGMENT Mr. A.K. Sikri, C.J.:- Provoked by newspaper reports appearing on 29.3.2013 relating to the incident which happened on 27.3.2013, the present petition is filed by the petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, by way of Public Interest Litigation. As per report of the Hindustan Times, it is stated that three youths were celebrating Holi on 27.3.2013. When they were chased by the police after they dodged a Naka in Mani Majra at around 2.00 P.M. and on reaching Chandimandir, the Driver of the motorbike lost control. As a result, the bike skidded and hit a road divider. All three youths suffered fatal injuries because of that accident and lost their lives. On the other hand, version given by the Indian Express is different. These three youths were killed in an accident at about 1.30 P.M. when they were riding a bike on Chandigarh–Kalka road and were hit by a vehicle from behind. The Tribune has given another version of the incident. As per this, these youths were killed in road mishap when their motorcycle hit a divider on the Panchkula-Kalka highway near Command Hospital on Wednesday afternoon. The report is silent about the cause of accident. 2. The petitioner thus, states that there is no denial that incident has happened. However, three newspaper reports have given three different versions. On that basis, the prayer made in this petition is that a case under Section 304-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 191 and 192 IPC be registered against the police officials, who were on duty on that day and were driving a Gypsy at the Nakabandi at Mani Majra. 3. We fail to understand how such a relief is claimed. As per the petitioner himself, the three newspapers have given three different versions and alleged culpability of the police officials is nowhere mentioned. As per the petitioner himself, the three newspapers have given three different versions. However, the petitioner has rushed to this Court on the basis of these diverse reports without verifying the facts. This tendency of filing the petitions on the basis of unverified and unsubstantiated newspaper reports has been deprecated by the Courts time and again. It has now been a well grounded principle of law that public interest litigation based on unsubstantiated facts is not to be entertained. In Gurpal Singh Vs. This tendency of filing the petitions on the basis of unverified and unsubstantiated newspaper reports has been deprecated by the Courts time and again. It has now been a well grounded principle of law that public interest litigation based on unsubstantiated facts is not to be entertained. In Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, [2005(3) Law Herald (P&H) 297 (SC)] : 2005(5) Supreme Court Cases 136, the scope of entertaining the Public Interest Litigations was stated in the following manner:- “The scope of entertaining a petition styled as public interest litigation, locus-standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. 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 busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as publicspirited 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.” Likewise, in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 349, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Courts have to be watchful that no one’s character is besmirched and that justifiable executive actions are not assailed for oblique motives. The Court has to be extremely careful that it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature 4. The Court has to be extremely careful that it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature 4. When we confronted the petitioner, who appeared in person to argue the case, about the aforesaid, he kept on insisting that there was a presumption of guilt of the police officials, though he admitted that petition was filed simply on the basis of newspaper reports. Such a petition is nothing but misuse and abuse of the process of law and we dismiss the same with costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be paid to the High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————