Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 231 (KAR)

Mohamed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka

2022-02-17

J.M.KHAZI, KRISHNA S.DIXIT, RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This public interest litigation has been filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the impugned Government Order No.EP 14 SHH 2022 Bengaluru, dtd. 5/2/2022 vide Annexure-A, as being unconstitutional, illegal and void, and/or b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the petitioner's right to wear HIJAB is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution and is an essential part of the Islam religion". 2. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that abuse of the noble concept of PIL has been increasing day by day and to curb this, there should be explicit and broad guidelines for entertaining petitions as PILs, vide STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL and OTHERS, (2010) 3 SCC 402 . The High Court of Karnataka (PIL) Rules, 2018 have been accordingly promulgated under Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India. These Rules having been duly published vide Gazette Notification dtd. 11/7/2019 are now in force. Rule 14 contains instructions for filing Public Interest Litigations. Sub-rule (1) provides for what all a writ petition intended to be a Public Interest Litigation shall contain. On perusal of the petition averments, we are satisfied that the requirement of this Rule has not been substantially complied with. No plausible explanation is offered by the petitioner for such non-compliance, either. The contention of petitioner's counsel that strict adherence should not be expected if countenanced, may result in the gradual degeneration of the very prescription, and this would not augur well to the adjudication of social action litigations of the kind. 3. There is yet another reason as to why we are not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter: the very concept of PIL adjudication was conceived by the Apex Court in respect of worthy causes affecting the public at large but not being brought before the Court by the aggrieved. The issues concerning socially or economically disabled people may go unaddressed or are not effectively responded to, owing to their lack of organization, representation or for the for want of any particular forum for working out their grievances. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, relaxed rules of standing will be due. 4. What the Apex Court observed in S.P.GUPTA Vs. The issues concerning socially or economically disabled people may go unaddressed or are not effectively responded to, owing to their lack of organization, representation or for the for want of any particular forum for working out their grievances. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, relaxed rules of standing will be due. 4. What the Apex Court observed in S.P.GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1982 SC 149 , at paragraph 17 is instructive: "It may, therefore, now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons..." 5. The petitioner in this PIL seeks to lay a challenge to the Government Order dtd. 5/2/2022 whereby the dress code / school uniform is sought to be provided for with the formation of College Development Committees. The very same order has been put in challenge by the aggrieved students in a batch of writ petitions. They are represented by a battery of lawyers and Senior Advocates. This Special Bench comprising three judges has been hearing those cases since last five days and thus, the hearing is half way through. Thus, it is not that in a worthy cause like this, the aggrieved are not before this Court nor that, the important questions are not raised and debated in the said petitions. Nothing has been averred as to why, the petitioner despite all this should be permitted to maintain this PIL. Thus, it is not that in a worthy cause like this, the aggrieved are not before this Court nor that, the important questions are not raised and debated in the said petitions. Nothing has been averred as to why, the petitioner despite all this should be permitted to maintain this PIL. No person in the name of Public Interest Litigation can claim an automatic hearing and such hearing cannot be provided by the Court unless the PIL litigant demonstrates the bona fide. In the above said circumstances, this writ petition filed in the form of a PIL being not maintainable and otherwise devoid of merits, is dismissed. No costs.