JUDGMENT R.M. Borde, J. - Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Dattaprasad Lawande, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents-State of Goa. 2. The Petitioner, who claims to be a social activist, has presented the instant PIL Writ Petition claiming the following reliefs : (A) To issue a writ of mandamus or enforce the writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Chief Secretary to immediately conduct medical evaluation of the Chief Minister by a team of expert Doctors and the medical reports be released to the members of the public. (B) The Petitioner has also sought a declaration under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring that the citizens of the State are entitled to know the state of health of the Chief Minister who is the constitutional functionary and the general public be informed the necessary information as regards the state of health of the Chief Minister. 3. The Petitioner places reliance on the newspaper reports and certain advertisements released by the Government to support his contention that the state of health of the Chief Minister is critical and he is not in a position to perform the obligations of his office. The Petitioner specifically contends that some senior bureaucrats have apprehensions that the signatures of the Chief Minister are being forged by two senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) officials. The Petitioner also claims to have gained some information from the senior bureaucrats that the State Secretary is putting signatures on behalf of the Chief Minister and as such, the bureaucrats are refusing to act on such directives. It is further contended that since the party in power finds it difficult to get a replacement for the Chief Minister, inspite of the critical state of health of the Chief Minister he is being continued in the office. The Petitioner has also alleged that the Rules of Business of the Government of Goa are being flouted and are not being observed. 4. Relying upon the reports published in the newspaper "O Heraldo" on 18 November 2018, it is contended that the Chief Minister of the State is suffering from pancreatic cancer, and that there had been administrative collapse for last eight months and the administration in the State has been completely paralysed. 4. Relying upon the reports published in the newspaper "O Heraldo" on 18 November 2018, it is contended that the Chief Minister of the State is suffering from pancreatic cancer, and that there had been administrative collapse for last eight months and the administration in the State has been completely paralysed. Referring to the press "conference" held by the Revenue Minister on 18 November 2018, it is stated in the Petition that the Chief Minister who is undergoing palliative care is not well. The Petitioner has approached the Honourable Governor seeking an intervention in the matter and a request is also made to conduct the medical evaluation of the Chief Minister by a team of expert Doctors and the medical reports of examination shall be released for the information of the public at the earliest. The Petitioner states in the Petition that he has secured information from various press releases, as well as the reports published by the Government of Goa, Information Department. 5. The Petition was taken up for consideration on 26 November 2018 and, during the course of hearing of the Petition, the learned Advocate General caused appearance on behalf of Respondents No.2 and 3 and sought time to file reply. The Respondents have presented reply, objecting to the maintainability of the Petition. Entertainability of the Petition has been objected contending that the same is not maintainable, either in law or on facts. It is contended that the presentation of the PIL Petition is nothing, but an attempt to make a roving and fishing inquiry. The same is based on anecdotal statements and relies upon surmises and conjectures. It is contended that a writ of mandamus can be claimed when there is a legal right in favour of the Petitioner and the unjustifiable failure on the part of an authority in respect of a duty imposed. That the authority should be obliged in law to imperatively discharge the duty. The mandamus lies only where there is a specific legal right and that there is no legal remedy to enforce the same. It is claimed that the whole attempt of the Petitioner is to derive political mileage. The Petition is absolutely lacking in utmost good faith, which is an essential prerequisite for the maintainability of a PIL Petition. The Petitioner has a political agenda. His political affiliations have not been disclosed in the Petition. It is claimed that the whole attempt of the Petitioner is to derive political mileage. The Petition is absolutely lacking in utmost good faith, which is an essential prerequisite for the maintainability of a PIL Petition. The Petitioner has a political agenda. His political affiliations have not been disclosed in the Petition. Apart from this, it is contended that the Chief Minister has a right to privacy as an individual and the State being the protector of the rights of a citizen, is entitled to claim availability of such a right. It is specifically stated in the affidavit that the Chief Minister chairs regular cabinet meetings and various decisions are taken in the cabinet meetings. The Chief Minister has also been meeting MLAs, as well as the officials and is apprised of various aspects relating to administration. All these facts are regularly reported in the Press, however, the Petitioner has relied upon only those press releases which suits his convenience. It is contended that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material information from this Court and as such, the Petition shall not be entertained. 6. The Petition, which is termed as a Public Interest Litigation, does not spell out the cause of action which is a sine qua non for the maintainability of the Petition and the Petition be dismissed. The Petitioner relies only on the newspaper reports and has not made any serious efforts to find out the truth. The Petition lacks in the material particulars and is a attempt to make a roving and fishing inquiry which is not permissible. It is contended that the aspect of health status of an individual is covered by fiduciary relationship between a Doctor and a client and the same falls outside the scope of a Public Interest Litigation Petition. It is contended that Rule 2.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 clearly stipulates that the information available to a Physician about a patient during medical attendance should never be revealed, unless required by the laws in force. It is contended that a health problem of a person cannot be subject to the scrutiny as the same would amount to unwarranted invasion on the privacy of a person, which may set a very dangerous precedent. 7. It is contended that a health problem of a person cannot be subject to the scrutiny as the same would amount to unwarranted invasion on the privacy of a person, which may set a very dangerous precedent. 7. It is contended by the Petitioner that there are certain constitutional obligations attached to the Office of the Chief Minister and it is a matter of public concern and citizens have entitlement to know the health status of the constitutional functionary. It is contended that larger public interest would prevail over the individual right of privacy and in a democratic set up, the interest of the public at large shall have to be considered, with utmost priority as against the right of privacy available to a constitutional functionary. It is contended that the people have a right to know about the affairs of the Government which is elected by them. The people have a right to know whether the Head of the Executive is in a position to perform his constitutional obligations or not. Reliance is placed on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Namit Sharma vs. Union of India, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 745 . It is observed by the Apex Court in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Judgment as under : "The value of any freedom is determined by the extent to which the citizens are able to enjoy such freedom. Ours is a constitutional democracy and it is axiomatic that citizens have the right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been elected by them, seeks to formulate some policies of governance aimed at their welfare. However, like any other freedom, this freedom also has limitations. 2. It is a settled proposition that the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India encompasses the right to impart and receive information. The right to information has been stated to be one of the important facets of proper governance. With the passage of time, this concept has not only developed in the field of law, but also has attained new dimensions in its application. This Court while highlighting the need for the society and its entitlement to know has observed that public interest is better served by effective application of the right to information. With the passage of time, this concept has not only developed in the field of law, but also has attained new dimensions in its application. This Court while highlighting the need for the society and its entitlement to know has observed that public interest is better served by effective application of the right to information. This freedom has been accepted in one form or the other in various parts of the world." The Petitioner has also referred to the observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said Judgement, which read thus : "22. In light of the law guaranteeing the right to information, the citizens have the fundamental right to know what the Government is doing in its name. The freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political growth. It is a safety valve. People are more ready to accept the decisions that go against them if they can in principle seem to influence them. In a way, it checks abuse of power by the public officials. In the modern times, where there has been globalisation of trade and industry, the scientific growth in the communication system and faster commuting has turned the world into a very well-knit community. The view projected, with some emphasis, is that the imparting of information qua the working of the Government on the one hand and its decision affecting the domestic and international trade and other activities on the other, impose an obligation upon the authorities to disclose information. 23. The right to information was harnessed as a tool for promoting development; strengthening the democratic governance and effective delivery of socio-economic services. Acquisition of information and knowledge and its application have intense and pervasive impact on the process of taking informed decision, resulting in overall productivity gains. It is also said that information and knowledge are critical for realising all human aspirations such as improvement in the quality of life. Sharing of information, for instance, about the new techniques of farming, health care facilities, hazards of environmental degradation, opportunities for learning and earning, legal remedies for combating gender bias, etc. have over time made significant contributions to the well-being of poor people. Sharing of information, for instance, about the new techniques of farming, health care facilities, hazards of environmental degradation, opportunities for learning and earning, legal remedies for combating gender bias, etc. have over time made significant contributions to the well-being of poor people. It is also felt that this right and the laws relating thereto empower every citizen to take charge of his life and make proper choices on the basis of freely available information for effective participation in economic and political activities. 24. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in his book Freedom of Information expressed the view: The right to information is a right incidental to the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. The international movement to include it in the legal system gained prominence in 1946 with the General Assembly of the United Nations declaring freedom of information to be a fundamental human right and a touchstone for all other liberties. It culminated in the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information held in Geneva in 1948. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: ''19. Everyone has the right to freedom of [information]* - and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' It may be a coincidence that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution also provides every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, the word ''information'' is conspicuously absent. But, as the highest court has explicated, the right of information is integral to freedom of expression. India was a member of the Commission on Human Rights appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations which drafted the 1948 Declaration. As such it would have been eminently fit and proper if the right to information was included in the rights enumerated under Article 19 of our Constitution. India was a member of the Commission on Human Rights appointed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations which drafted the 1948 Declaration. As such it would have been eminently fit and proper if the right to information was included in the rights enumerated under Article 19 of our Constitution. Article 55 of the UN Charter stipulates that the United Nations ''shall promote respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms'' and according to Article 56 'all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the organisation for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55''." In paragraph 26 of the Judgment, it is observed by the Supreme Court that the common man''s distress and helplessness could be traced to his lack of access to information and lack of knowledge of decision-making process. He remains ignorant and unaware of the process which affects his interest. The Government procedures and regulations shrouded in the veil of secrecy do not allow the litigants to know how they are being handled and the Government must assume a major responsibility and mobilise skills to ensure flow of information to citizens. The Petitioner thus contends that the foundation of the information as regards the health status of the constitutional functionary is the responsibility of the State and a citizen has right to know as to how and in what manner the State Government functions. 8. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of People''s Union of Civil Liberties & Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 399 . The issue before the Supreme Court was as regards revelation of certain information by each of the candidates seeking elections to the Parliament or the State Legislature as a part of the nomination papers as regards his criminal antecedents, liabilities and overdues of Government and public financial institutions, details as regards his assets and liabilities, his educational qualifications, etc. The Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has emphasized the right of the voter to have information about the candidate seeking elections to the Legislature. In Paragraph 94 of the Judgment, it is observed thus : "94. The trite saying that "democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people" has to be remembered forever. The Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment has emphasized the right of the voter to have information about the candidate seeking elections to the Legislature. In Paragraph 94 of the Judgment, it is observed thus : "94. The trite saying that "democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people" has to be remembered forever. In a democratic republic, it is the will of the people that is paramount and becomes the basis of the authority of the Government. The will is expressed in periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage held by means of secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the voter expresses his choice or preference for a candidate. "Voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue", as observed by this Court in Lily Thomas vs. Speaker, Lok Sabha (1993) 4 SCC 234 (SCC pp. 236-37, para 2) quoting from Black''s Law Dictionary. The citizens of the country are enabled to take part in the government through their chosen representatives. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the Government of the day is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The people''s representatives fill the role of law-makers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances. They are the focal point of the will and authority of the people at large. The moment they put in papers for contesting the election, they are subjected to public gaze and public scrutiny. The character, strength and weakness of the candidate is widely debated. Nothing is therefore more important for sustenance of democratic polity than the voter making an intelligent and rational choice of his or her representative. For this, the voter should be in a position to effectively formulate his/her opinion and to ultimately express that opinion through ballot by casting the vote. The concomitant of the right to vote which is the basic postulate of democracy is thus twofold: first, formulation of opinion about the candidates and second, the expression of choice by casting the vote in favour of the preferred candidate at the polling booth. The first step is complementary to the other. The concomitant of the right to vote which is the basic postulate of democracy is thus twofold: first, formulation of opinion about the candidates and second, the expression of choice by casting the vote in favour of the preferred candidate at the polling booth. The first step is complementary to the other. Many a voter will be handicapped in formulating the opinion and making a proper choice of the candidate unless the essential information regarding the candidate is available. The voter/citizen should have at least the basic information about the contesting candidate, such as his involvement in serious criminal offences. To scuttle the flow of information - relevant and essential - would affect the electorate''s ability to evaluate the candidate. Not only that, the information relating to the candidates will pave the way for public debate on the merits and demerits of the candidates. When once there is public disclosure of the relevant details concerning the candidates, the press, as a media of mass communication and voluntary organizations vigilant enough to channel the public opinion on right lines will be able to disseminate the information and thereby enlighten and alert the public at large regarding the adverse antecedents of a candidate. It will go a long way in promoting the freedom of speech and expression. That goal would be accomplished in two ways. It will help the voter who is interested in seeking and receiving information about the candidate to form an opinion according to his or her conscience and best of judgment and secondly, it will facilitate the press and voluntary organizations in imparting information on a matter of vital public concern. An informed voter - whether he acquires information directly by keeping track of disclosures or through the press and other channels of communication - will be able to fulfil his responsibility in a more satisfactory manner. An enlightened and informed citizenry would undoubtedly enhance democratic values. Thus, the availability of proper and relevant information about the candidate fosters and promotes the freedom of speech and expression both from the point of view of imparting and receiving the information. In turn, it would lead to the preservation of the integrity of electoral process which is so essential for the growth of democracy. Thus, the availability of proper and relevant information about the candidate fosters and promotes the freedom of speech and expression both from the point of view of imparting and receiving the information. In turn, it would lead to the preservation of the integrity of electoral process which is so essential for the growth of democracy. Though I do not go to the extent of remarking that the election will be a farce if the candidates'' antecedents are not known to the voters, I would say that such information will certainly be conducive to fairness in election process and integrity in public life. The disclosure of information would facilitate and augment the freedom of expression both from the point of view of the voter as well as the media through which the information is publicized and openly debated." 9. The Petitioner contends that in a democratic set up, the voter is entitled to know about the antecedents of the candidates contesting the elections. Fair play and flow of information, according to the Petitioner, is core of the democratic governance. It is thus contended that the people do have right to know about the details of their candidates and thus cannot be kept under the veil of secrecy. A reference shall also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Narula vs. Union of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 1 . The Petitioner refers to the principles of constitutional morality, good governance and constitutional trust. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 74, 75, 82, 83 and 84, which read thus : "74. The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a Constitution made for a progressive society. Working of such a Constitution depends upon the prevalent atmosphere and conditions. Dr Ambedkar had, throughout the debate, felt that the Constitution can live and grow on the bedrock of constitutional morality. Speaking on the same, he said: "Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a topdressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic." Constituent Assembly Debates, 1948. Vol. VII, 38. 75. Speaking on the same, he said: "Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a topdressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic." Constituent Assembly Debates, 1948. Vol. VII, 38. 75. The principle of constitutional morality basically means to bow down to the norms of the Constitution and not to act in a manner which would become violative of the rule of law or reflectible of action in an arbitrary manner. It actually works at the fulcrum and guides as a laser beam in institution building. The traditions and conventions have to grow to sustain the value of such a morality. The democratic values survive and become successful where the people at large and the persons in charge of the institution are strictly guided by the constitutional parameters without paving the path of deviancy and reflecting in action the primary concern to maintain institutional integrity and the requisite constitutional restraints. Commitment to the Constitution is a facet of constitutional morality. In this context, the following passage would be apt to be reproduced: "If men were angels, no Government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. James Madison as Publius, Federalist 51" 82. In a democracy, the citizens legitimately expect that the Government of the day would treat the public interest as the primary one and any other interest secondary. The maxim salus populi suprema lex , has not only to be kept in view but also has to be revered. The faith of the people is embedded in the root of the idea of good governance which means reverence for citizenry rights, respect for fundamental rights and statutory rights in any governmental action, deference for unwritten constitutional values, veneration for institutional integrity, and inculcation of accountability to the collective at large. The faith of the people is embedded in the root of the idea of good governance which means reverence for citizenry rights, respect for fundamental rights and statutory rights in any governmental action, deference for unwritten constitutional values, veneration for institutional integrity, and inculcation of accountability to the collective at large. It also conveys that the decisions are taken by the decision-making authority with solemn sincerity and policies are framed keeping in view the welfare of the people, and including all in a homogeneous compartment. The concept of good governance is not a Utopian conception or an abstraction. It has been the demand of the polity wherever democracy is nourished. The growth of democracy is dependent upon good governance in reality and the aspiration of the people basically is that the administration is carried out by people with responsibility with service orientation. Constitutional trust 83. Having stated about good governance, we shall proceed to deal with the doctrine of "constitutional trust". The issue of constitutional trust arises in the context of the debate in the Constituent Assembly that had taken place pertaining to the recommendation for appointment of a Minister to the Council of Ministers. Responding to the proposal for the amendment suggested by Prof. K.T. Shah with regard to the introduction of a disqualification of a convicted person becoming a Minister, Dr B.R. Ambedkar had replied: (CAD Vol. VII, p. 1160) "His last proposition is that no person who is convicted may be appointed a Minister of the State. Well, so far as his intention is concerned, it is no doubt very laudable and I do not think any Member of this House would like to differ from him on that proposition. But the whole question is this: whether we should introduce all these qualifications and disqualifications in the Constitution itself. Is it not desirable, is it not sufficient that we should trust the Prime Minister, the legislature and the public at large watching the actions of the Ministers and the actions of the legislature to see that no such infamous thing is done by either of them? I think this is a case which may eminently be left to the good sense of the Prime Minister and to the good sense of the legislature with the general public holding a watching brief upon them. I therefore say that these amendments are unnecessary." (emphasis supplied) 84. I think this is a case which may eminently be left to the good sense of the Prime Minister and to the good sense of the legislature with the general public holding a watching brief upon them. I therefore say that these amendments are unnecessary." (emphasis supplied) 84. The trust reposed in the Prime Minister is based on his constitutional status. In Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjb AIR 1955 SC 549 , B.K. Mukherjea, C.J., while referring to the scope of Article 74, observed that under Article 53(1) of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union is vested in President but under Article 74, there is to be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. The President has, thus been, made a formal or constitutional head of the executive and the real executive powers are vested in the Ministers or the Cabinet." 10. The Petitioner thus contends that the matter pertaining to the health of the Chief Minister cannot be said to be an intrusion in the official secrets. The Chief Minister''s Office being a constitutional office, makes it amenable to the access of and is within the realm of scrutiny. It is contended that in a democratic structure, the citizens have a right to know about the health condition and mental as well as physical ability of the Chief Minister to dispense with the administrative functions of the State. No immunity whatsoever can be claimed for withholding the information. 11. The objections raised on behalf of the Respondents as regards the entertainability of the Petition deserves to be considered at the threshold. It is contended that the Petition, as presented, lacks in material particulars, is based on the newspapers reports and, as such, need not be entertained. It is contended that the Petitioner has not moved this Court with clean hands and has withheld the vital information from this Court. The Petitioner is actively involved in party politics. He was a past President of the Nationalist Congress Party of Goa unit and had also presented his nomination paper for contesting the elections to the Goa Legislative Assembly. Political antecedents of the Petitioner have been withheld from this Court. The Petitioner is actively involved in party politics. He was a past President of the Nationalist Congress Party of Goa unit and had also presented his nomination paper for contesting the elections to the Goa Legislative Assembly. Political antecedents of the Petitioner have been withheld from this Court. It is thus contended that since the Petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, the PIL Petition which is presented to derive the political mileage, should not be entertained. The Petitioner has not taken pains to collect the necessary information and has presented the instant petition based on only newspaper reports. Though the Petitioner makes allegations that the signatures of the Chief Minister are being forged, neither the Petitioner has divulged the source of information, nor has given any specific instances or the details in respect of the files which contain forged signatures of the Chief Minister. There are vague and baseless allegations made in the Petition, which do not find any support from the materials placed on record and thus the Petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is also pointed out that the verification of the Petition is also too vague and is not in conformity with the procedure. The Petitioner claims that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 12.1 are true as per his own knowledge and belief, as well as those are in the nature of the legal submissions and/or references on facts which he believed to be true. The verification of the Petition is also not in accordance with the PIL Writ Petition Rules. 12. On perusal of the contents of the Petition, it does appear that the statements made therein are based on the newspapers reports. Though the Petitioner states that the administration of the State has come to standstill, there is absolutely no elaboration thereof. The Petitioner contends that two of the senior BJP''s office bearers are clearing the files and this information has been furnished to him by Senior Bureaucrats. It has not been clarified as to which are those files which have been cleared by the BJP office bearers. It has also not been clarified which of the files bear forged signatures of the Chief Minister. It was open for the Petitioner to seek information by presenting appropriate application under the Right to Information Act. It has not been clarified as to which are those files which have been cleared by the BJP office bearers. It has also not been clarified which of the files bear forged signatures of the Chief Minister. It was open for the Petitioner to seek information by presenting appropriate application under the Right to Information Act. However, the Petitioner has not taken any efforts to secure proper information and has made bold allegations in the Petition, without there being any foundation. If the verification of the Petition is referred, the Petitioner claims that the contents are true to his own knowledge and at the same breath he states that those are his legal submissions. The Petitioner has not disclosed his source of information, nor has he placed any authentic material on record to substantiate his allegations that the administrative machinery of the State has come to standstill or that the administration is being carried out by somebody else than the Chief Minister and that the signatures of the Chief Minister are being forged. Though the Petitioner has made serious allegations in the Petition, there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the allegations. The Chief Minister is the head of the Council of Ministers and he is obliged to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, as has been provided under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. The Governor of the State is bound to exercise his executive powers in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor and other Ministers are appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The duties of the Chief Minister are enumerated under Article 167 of the Constitution. 13. The Petitioner alleges that there is a breakdown of the administrative mechanism in the State and the Honourable Chief Minister is not discharging his constitutional obligations. The contention of the Petitioner has been controverted by the Chief Secretary who has presented his affidavit. It is specifically recorded in paragraph 6(g) of the affidavit that the Chief Minister chairs regular cabinet meetings and various decisions are taken in the cabinet meetings. The Chief Minister has also been meeting MLAs, as well as the officials and he is apprised of various aspects relating to administration. It is specifically recorded in paragraph 6(g) of the affidavit that the Chief Minister chairs regular cabinet meetings and various decisions are taken in the cabinet meetings. The Chief Minister has also been meeting MLAs, as well as the officials and he is apprised of various aspects relating to administration. The Chief Secretary is the head of the bureaucracy in the State and the fact that the Chief Minister chairs cabinet meetings is within the personal knowledge of the Chief Secretary. It has also been recorded specifically in the affidavit that the Chief Minister meets MLAs, as well as the officials and he is apprised of the various aspects relating to the administration. It is, thus, clear that the Chief Minister participates in the administrative decisions, chairs cabinet meetings and thus performs his functions as the Chief Minister. 14. Thus, there is a categorical assertion on behalf of the State that the Chief Minister is performing his constitutional obligations, which aspect has not been controverted by the Petitioner by filing rejoinder affidavit. The Petitioner has merely made unsubstantiated allegations in the Petition, without there being any basis or support for such assertions. As has been informed, the Petitioner belongs to a rival political party and his political affiliation has not been disclosed by him in the Petition. It prima facie appears that the instant Petition, as has been presented, is not a bonafide public interest litigation, but appears to have been actuated by political considerations. 15. It is contended vehemently by the learned Advocate General that the details as regards the health status of an individual is within the private domain of such an individual and disclosure of such information, without the consent of the individual concerned, would be impermissible. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 , it is contended that the State is the guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens. The expression "life or personal liberty" has been held to include the right to live with human dignity. Right of privacy is also an integral part of the human dignity and is referable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts, where infringement of the fundamental rights is established, cannot stop by giving some declaration. The expression "life or personal liberty" has been held to include the right to live with human dignity. Right of privacy is also an integral part of the human dignity and is referable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts, where infringement of the fundamental rights is established, cannot stop by giving some declaration. Something further is expected from the State in the event of breach of public duty and protecting the fundamental right of life of the citizen is part of obligation of the State. To repair the wrong done and give judicial redress for legal injury is a compulsion of judicial conscience. 16. It is contended that the relationship between a Doctor and the patient is a fiduciary relationship. Black''s Law Dictionary Defines "Fiduciary relationship" thus : "Fiduciary relationship.-A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships-such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client-require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognised as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer." 17. The information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship such as a Doctor or a Nurse with reference to a patient is not liable to be divulged. A reference can be made to a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of India and others, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 634 . An application presented by the appellant before the Supreme Court seeking information relating to details of medical facilities availed by individual Judges and their family members, including the information relating to expenses on private treatment in India or abroad in last 3 years was allowed by the Central Public Information Officer. An application presented by the appellant before the Supreme Court seeking information relating to details of medical facilities availed by individual Judges and their family members, including the information relating to expenses on private treatment in India or abroad in last 3 years was allowed by the Central Public Information Officer. The High Court held that the information regarding details of medical facilities availed by the individual Judges being personal information, providing the same would amount to invasion of privacy. The decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed while rejecting the Petition that divulging such information would amount to invasion of the privacy and that there is no public interest involved in seeking details of the facilities availed by the individual Judges. In paragraph 11 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has observed thus : "11. The information sought by the appellant includes the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual Judges. The same being personal information, we are of the view that providing such information would undoubtedly amount to invasion of the privacy. We have also taken note of the fact that it was conceded before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that no larger public interest is involved in seeking the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual Judges. It may also be mentioned that the total expenditure incurred for the medical treatment of the Judges for the period in question was already furnished by the CPIO by his letter dated 30-8-2011 and it is not the case of the appellant that the said expenditure is excessive or exorbitant. That being so, we are unable to understand how the public interest requires disclosure of the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual Judges. In the absence of any such larger public interest, no direction whatsoever can be issued under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act by the appellate authorities. Therefore on that ground also the order passed by the CIC dated 1-2-2012 is unsustainable and the same has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge." 18. In another Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. Therefore on that ground also the order passed by the CIC dated 1-2-2012 is unsustainable and the same has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge." 18. In another Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mr. ''X'' vs. Hospital ''Z'', reported in (1998) 8 SCC 296 , it is observed in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Judgment that the doctor-patient relationship though basically commercial, is, professionally a matter of confidence and, therefore, the doctors are morally and ethically bound to maintain confidentiality. In such a situation, public disclosure of even true private facts may amount to an invasion of the right of privacy which may sometimes lead to the clash of one person''s "right to be let alone" with another person''s right to be informed. Disclosure of even true private facts has the tendency to disturb a person''s tranquility. It may generate many complexes in him and may even lead to psychological problems. He may, thereafter, have a disturbed life all through. The right of privacy is an essential component of the right to life envisaged by Article 21. The right, however, is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. The explanation carved out is not relevant in the instant matter. The alleged breakdown of constitutional machinery or the law and order situation in the State and the higher public interest of the society in securing disclosure of the health status of the Chief Minister has not been substantiated by the Petitioner at all. 19. It would be inevitable to refer to the landmark Judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.S. Puttaswamy and another vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 . The Judgment is elaboration on the issue of right to privacy. The question that arose for consideration of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court was, "whether there is any fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution, and if so, where is it located and what are its contours". It has been unanimously held by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. It has been unanimously held by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Individual dignity and privacy are inextricably linked in a pattern woven out of thread of diversity into the fabric of a plural culture. Privacy eminently qualifies as an inalienable natural right, intimately connected to two values whose protection is a matter of universal moral agreement, the innate dignity and autonomy of man. It is no doubt a fair implication from Article 21, but also more. Privacy is a right or condition, logically presupposed by rights expressly recorded in the constitutional text, if they are to make sense. As a result, privacy is more than merely a derivative constitutional right. It is the necessary and unavoidable logical entailment of rights guaranteed in the text of the Constitution. In the context of Article 21, an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. Not only the procedure, but the law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty and thus of privacy, must meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. In paragraph 42 of the Judgment it is observed : "42. Privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality. It finds an origin in the notion that there are certain rights which are natural to or inherent in a human being. Natural rights are inalienable because they are inseparable from the human personality. The human element in life is impossible to conceive without the existence of natural rights. ..." A reference is made to PUCL vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 , which reads thus : "We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal liberty'' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. ..." A reference is made to PUCL vs. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 , which reads thus : "We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal liberty'' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law." We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the right to privacy is a part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted, the said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law". 20. It would be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the Supreme Court under the sub-heading "Essential nature of privacy" recorded in paragraphs 297 to 299 of the Judgment which read thus : "297. What, then, does privacy postulate? Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described as the right to be let alone. The concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human personality. The notion of privacy enables the individual to assert and control the human element which is inseparable from the personality of the individual. The inviolable nature of the human personality is manifested in the ability to make decisions on matters intimate to human life. The autonomy of the individual is associated over matters which can be kept private. These are concerns over which there is a legitimate expectation of privacy. The body and the mind are inseparable elements of the human personality. The integrity of the body and the sanctity of the mind can exist on the foundation that each individual possesses an inalienable ability and right to preserve a private space in which the human personality can develop. Without the ability to make choices, the inviolability of the personality would be in doubt. Recognising a zone of privacy is but an acknowledgment that each individual must be entitled to chart and pursue the course of development of personality. Hence privacy is a postulate of human dignity itself. Without the ability to make choices, the inviolability of the personality would be in doubt. Recognising a zone of privacy is but an acknowledgment that each individual must be entitled to chart and pursue the course of development of personality. Hence privacy is a postulate of human dignity itself. Thoughts and behavioural patterns which are intimate to an individual are entitled to a zone of privacy where one is free of social expectations. In that zone of privacy, an individual is not judged by others. Privacy enables each individual to take crucial decisions which find expression in the human personality. It enables individuals to preserve their beliefs, thoughts, expressions, ideas, ideologies, preferences and choices against societal demands of homogeneity. Privacy is an intrinsic recognition of heterogeneity, of the right of the individual to be different and to stand against the tide of conformity in creating a zone of solitude. Privacy protects the individual from the searching glare of publicity in matters which are personal to his or her life. Privacy attaches to the person and not to the place where it is associated. Privacy constitutes the foundation of all liberty because it is in privacy that the individual can decide how liberty is best exercised. Individual dignity and privacy are inextricably linked in a pattern woven out of a thread of diversity into the fabric of a plural culture. 298. Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its instrumental facet, dignity and freedom are inseparably intertwined, each being a facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability of the individual to protect a zone of privacy enables the realisation of the full value of life and liberty. Liberty has a broader meaning of which privacy is a subset. All liberties may not be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent fundamental right. All liberties may not be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent fundamental right. But that does not detract from the constitutional protection afforded to it, once the true nature of privacy and its relationship with those fundamental rights which are expressly protected is understood. Privacy lies across the spectrum of protected freedoms. The guarantee of equality is a guarantee against arbitrary State action. It prevents the State from discriminating between individuals. The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space whether of the body or of the mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary State action. Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one''s mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised. An individual may perceive that the best form of expression is to remain silent. Silence postulates a realm of privacy. An artist finds reflection of the soul in a creative endeavour. A writer expresses the outcome of a process of thought. A musician contemplates upon notes which musically lead to silence. The silence, which lies within, reflects on the ability to choose how to convey thoughts and ideas or interact with others. These are crucial aspects of personhood. The freedoms under Article 19 can be fulfilled where the individual is entitled to decide upon his or her preferences. A musician contemplates upon notes which musically lead to silence. The silence, which lies within, reflects on the ability to choose how to convey thoughts and ideas or interact with others. These are crucial aspects of personhood. The freedoms under Article 19 can be fulfilled where the individual is entitled to decide upon his or her preferences. Read in conjunction with Article 21, liberty enables the individual to have a choice of preferences on various facets of life including what and how one will eat, the way one will dress, the faith one will espouse and a myriad other matters on which autonomy and self-determination require a choice to be made within the privacy of the mind. The constitutional right to the freedom of religion under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to express or not express those choices to the world. These are some illustrations of the manner in which privacy facilitates freedom and is intrinsic to the exercise of liberty. The Constitution does not contain a separate article telling us that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right. Nor have we tagged the provisions of Part III with an alpha-suffixed right to privacy: this is not an act of judicial redrafting. Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values of life, liberty and freedom which the Constitution has recognised. Privacy is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value which straddles across the spectrum of fundamental rights and protects for the individual a zone of choice and self-determination. 299. Privacy represents the core of the human personality and recognises the ability of each individual to make choices and to take decisions governing matters intimate and personal. Yet, it is necessary to acknowledge that individuals live in communities and work in communities. Their personalities affect and, in turn are shaped by their social environment. The individual is not a hermit. The lives of individuals are as much a social phenomenon. In their interactions with others, individuals are constantly engaged in behavioural patterns and in relationships impacting on the rest of society. Equally, the life of the individual is being consistently shaped by cultural and social values imbibed from living in the community. The individual is not a hermit. The lives of individuals are as much a social phenomenon. In their interactions with others, individuals are constantly engaged in behavioural patterns and in relationships impacting on the rest of society. Equally, the life of the individual is being consistently shaped by cultural and social values imbibed from living in the community. This state of flux which represents a constant evolution of individual personhood in the relationship with the rest of society provides the rationale for reserving to the individual a zone of repose. The lives which individuals lead as members of society engender a reasonable expectation of privacy. The notion of a reasonable expectation of privacy has elements both of a subjective and objective nature. Privacy at a subjective level is a reflection of those areas where an individual desires to be left alone. On an objective plane, privacy is defined by those constitutional values which shape the content of the protected zone where the individual ought to be left alone. The notion that there must exist a reasonable expectation of privacy ensures that while on the one hand, the individual has a protected zone of privacy, yet on the other, the exercise of individual choices is subject to the rights of others to lead orderly lives. For instance, an individual who possesses a plot of land may decide to build upon it subject to zoning regulations. If the building bye-laws define the area upon which construction can be raised or the height of the boundary wall around the property, the right to privacy of the individual is conditioned by regulations designed to protect the interests of the community in planned spaces. Hence while the individual is entitled to a zone of privacy, its extent is based not only on the subjective expectation of the individual but on an objective principle which defines a reasonable expectation. Conclusions are recorded under the heading "T. Our conclusions" and those are relevant, which read thus : "316. The judgment in M.P. Sharma vs. Satrish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 holds essentially that in the absence of a provision similar to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy cannot be read into the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment in M.P. Sharma vs. Satrish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 holds essentially that in the absence of a provision similar to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy cannot be read into the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment does not specifically adjudicate on whether a right to privacy would arise from any of the other provisions of the rights guaranteed by Part III including Article 21 and Article 19. The observation that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is not reflective of the correct position. M.P. Sharma is overruled to the extent to which it indicates to the contrary. 317. Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 has correctly held that the content of the expression "life" under Article 21 means not merely the right to a person's "animal existence" and that the expression "personal liberty" is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person's home or an intrusion into personal security. Kharak Singh also correctly laid down that the dignity of the individual must lend content to the meaning of "personal liberty". The first part of the decision in Kharak Singhwhich invalidated domiciliary visits at night on the ground that they violated ordered liberty is an implicit recognition of the right to privacy. The second part of the decision, however, which holds that the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution, is not reflective of the correct position. Similarly, Kharak Singh reliance upon the decision of the majority in Gopalan vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 is not reflective of the correct position in view of the decisions in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India and in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of Aindia, Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian Constitution is overruled. 318. Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable from a dignified human existence. The dignity of the individual, equality between human beings and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution. 319. Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within. The dignity of the individual, equality between human beings and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution. 319. Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within. 320. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III. 321. Judicial recognition of the existence of a constitutional right to privacy is not an exercise in the nature of amending the Constitution nor is the Court embarking on a constitutional function of that nature which is entrusted to Parliament. 322. Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests which lie at the foundation of ordered liberty. 323. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being. 324. This Court has not embarked upon an exhaustive enumeration or a catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right to privacy. The Constitution must evolve with the felt necessities of time to meet the challenges thrown up in a democratic order governed by the Rule of Law. 324. This Court has not embarked upon an exhaustive enumeration or a catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right to privacy. The Constitution must evolve with the felt necessities of time to meet the challenges thrown up in a democratic order governed by the Rule of Law. The meaning of the Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when it was adopted. Technological change has given rise to concerns which were not present seven decades ago and the rapid growth of technology may render obsolescent many notions of the present. Hence the interpretation of the Constitution must be resilient and flexible to allow future generations to adapt its content bearing in mind its basic or essential features. 325. Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. 326. Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the State from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the State to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual. 327. Decisions rendered by this Court subsequent to Kharak Singh upholding the right to privacy would be read subject to the above principles. 328. Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the State but from non-State actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. 328. Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the State but from non-State actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the State. The legitimate aims of the State would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits. These are matters of policy to be considered by the Union Government while designing a carefully structured regime for the protection of the data. Since the Union Government has informed the Court that it has constituted a Committee chaired by Hon'ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court, for that purpose, the matter shall be dealt with appropriately by the Union Government having due regard to what has been set out in this judgment. 329. The reference is answered in the above terms." 21. Jasti Chelameswar, J. has considered the relationship of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution in the context of right to privacy and has recorded in paragraphs 364 of the Judgment as quoted below : "364. The interrelationship of Articles 19 and 21, if understood, as stated in para 363, the authority of the State to deprive any person of his liberty is circumscribed by certain factors: (1) It can only be done under the authority of law. (2) "Law" in the context means a valid legislation. (3) If the person whose liberty is sought to be deprived is a citizen and that liberty happens to be one of the freedoms enumerated in Article 19(1), such a law is required to be reasonable within the parameters stipulated in clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19, relevant to the nature of the entrenched freedom(s), such law seeks to abridge. (4) If the person whose liberty is sought to be deprived of is a non-citizen or even if a citizen is with respect to any freedom other than those specified in Articles 19(1), the law should be just, fair and reasonable." Irresistible conclusion that needs to be derived is that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India. Deprivation of the right can be done only under the authority of law and the law in the context means a valid legislation and the said law shall be just, fair and reasonable. The law and the procedure which invades the liberty of a citizen shall be just, fair and necessary. 22. The necessary corollary of the discussion above is that the Chief Minister has an individual right to protect his privacy and the information as regards his health status cannot be divulged without his consent. The Petitioner has gone far to the extent of claiming medical examination of the Honourable Chief Minister by a panel of Doctors which would be a violent invasion of the right of privacy of the Honourable Chief Minister, as an individual, and such claim is not supported by any law and thus, grant of any such relief as requested, would be impermissible. 23. The objections are raised by the Respondents-State in respect of imperfect or deficient pleadings. The Petitioner has not laid any foundation in the Petition by stating the true and correct facts to claim the reliefs. Since, there are no proper pleadings, other side is deprived of effectively answering the contentions of the Petitioner. The observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the Judgment are relevant for consideration. Those read as follows : " 8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. 9. Those read as follows : " 8. It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. 9. In Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1988) 4 SCC 534 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 543, para 13) "13. ... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point . ... there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not [the] evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat (1998) 4 SCC 387 , Atul Castings Ltd. vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh (2001) 5 SCC 133 , and Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti vs. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 609 . 10. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. 11. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555 and Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi (2011) 11 SCC 786 ) 12. It cannot be said that the rules of procedural law do not apply in PIL. The caution is always added that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence in such proceedings when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court. (Vide Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 ). 13. Strict rules of pleading may not apply in PIL, however, there must be sufficient material in the petition on the basis of which the court may proceed. The PIL litigant has to lay a factual foundation for his averments on the basis of which such a person claims the reliefs. The information furnished by him should not be vague and indefinite. Proper pleadings are necessary to meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Even in PIL, the litigant cannot approach the court to have a fishing or roving enquiry. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks the standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. He cannot claim to have a chance to establish his claim. However, the technicalities of the rules of pleading cannot be made applicable vigorously. Pleadings prepared by a layman must be construed generously as he lacks the standard of accuracy and precision particularly when a legal wrong is caused to a determinate class. (Vide A. Hamsaveni vs. State of T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 51 , Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B, (2004) 3 SCC 349 , Prabir Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa (2005) 13 SCC 452 and A. Abdul Farook vs. Municipal Council, Perambalur (2009) 15 SCC 351 .) 24. So far as the bonafides of the Petitioner in approaching this Court are concerned, the Petitioner has suppressed his antecedents and political affiliation from the Court. The observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs 159 and 161 are apt to be quoted. Those are : "159. The standard of expectation of civic responsibility required of a petitioner in a PIL is higher than that of an applicant who strives to realise personal ends. The courts expect a public interest litigant to discharge high standards of responsibility. Negligent use or use for oblique motives is extraneous to the PIL process for were the litigant to act for other oblique considerations, the application will be rejected at the threshold. Measuring the "seriousness" of the PIL petitioner and to see whether she/he is actually a "champion" of the cause of the individual or the group being represented, is the responsibility of the court, to ensure that the party's procedural behaviour remains that of an adequate "champion" of the public cause. [Vide Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 , Kapila Hingorani (1) vs. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1 and Kushum Lata vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180 . ] 161. A person seeking relief in public interest should approach the court of equity, not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or means to subvert justice." 25. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or means to subvert justice." 25. The Petitioner in order to substantiate his contention has placed reliance on the newspaper reports. Reports in the newspapers cannot form a basis for claiming reliefs in a PIL Petition. Unauthentic and unverified reports appearing in the newspapers cannot be relied upon. The Petitioner has made reckless allegations in respect of forgery of signatures of the Chief Minister on the official files which have not been substantiated. 26. In the context of this Petition, certain observations by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kushum Lata vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 180 are relevant. It would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 5 to 12 of the Judgment. Those are quoted below : "5. 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 second 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. The courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants 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. The courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants 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 personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. CBI1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 . 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 vs. Union of India 1993 Supp (2) SCC 20 and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620 .) 6. It is necessary to take note of the meaning of the expression "public interest litigation". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4 (4th Edn.), "public interest" is defined thus: "Public interest.-(l) A matter of public or general interest 'does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected'." 7. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) "public interest" is defined as follows: "Public interest.-Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government." 8. In Janata Dal 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116, this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331) "53. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government." 8. In Janata Dal 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116, this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para 53 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows: (SCC p. 331) "53. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression 'PIL' means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." 9. In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows: (SCC p. 334) "62. Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasise that the requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory; because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold." 10. In para 98 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows: (SCC pp. 345-46) "98. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration." 11. In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 348, para 109) "109. It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold." 12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the 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, unrepresented 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 unauthorised 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 lose faith in the administration of our judicial system. 13. 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. 13. 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 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, the court 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 considerations. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique 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. 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. 27. The Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed materials facts as regards his political affiliation. The facts stated in the Petition are based merely on unverified newspaper reports. The allegations made in the Petition are merely based on presumptions and those have not been substantiated, though serious allegations are made in respect of functioning of the Office of the Chief Minister. There is absolutely no material to substantiate those allegations. The Petitioner makes imputation of ill-mental health of the Chief Minister. However, while making such serious allegations, absolutely no care has been taken by him to verify whether the allegations are true or false. There is absolutely no material to substantiate those allegations. The Petitioner makes imputation of ill-mental health of the Chief Minister. However, while making such serious allegations, absolutely no care has been taken by him to verify whether the allegations are true or false. The constitutional functionary, merely on account of his ill-health is not incapable to occupy the constitutional position which he occupies on account of his proven majority before the House of Legislature, and any individual who has rival political interest has to adopt a democratic method to unsettle the political power. The Petitioner, by making unsubstantiated allegations seeks intervention of this Court to make a deep inroad into the right of privacy of the Chief Minister who also holds individual right of privacy as a citizen of this Country. Claiming relief of examination of the Honourable Chief Minister by a panel of Doctors and to report the outcome to the public is a outrageous overstepping in the territory of privacy of an individual and which would be impermissible in law to grant such request. There is no legislation in place which can form foundation of the claim raised in the Petition. In the absence of any law, the reliefs as claimed by the Petitioner in the Petition is not capable of being granted. The halfhearted attempt of presenting the Petition to make serious inroads in the territory of privacy of an individual is not at all appreciable. The litigation initiated under the garb of public interest litigation shall have to be categorized, as has been branded by the Supreme Court, either as a 'publicity interest litigation' or a 'private interest litigation' or a 'political interest litigation'. 28. Another striking feature which we may point out is that the Petitioner is seeking strictly private and confidential information which is within the realm of privacy of the Chief Minister, without making him a party to the Petition. The instant Petition, without making the Chief Minister party respondent, is not entertainable and deserves to be dismissed. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the PIL Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.