Delhi High Court: Three different petitions are filed by the petitioner who is an alumnus of IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, and has worked as an academician at IIT Delhi and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Mumbai, who alleges that his fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infringed which extends to his “right to have public organizations that are not criminally established”. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are involved in criminal activities, and have established various public organizations criminally, thereby infringing his fundamental right. The petitioner also claims that his “right to have access to one’s own criminal records”, covered under Article 21, has also been infringed by the respondents. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., imposed costs of Rs 30,000 in the three petitions each given the volume of frivolous litigation staring hard at the overburdened judiciary, it is the right time for taking action against such litigants.
The petitioner has impleaded the following as his respondents in his petitions along with others. The major ones are Union of India, Delhi Police, Mumbai Police, Bengaluru Police. Consenting Supreme Court Judges in Civil Appeal No. 6394 of 2010 , Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Tata Companies including and especially Tata Sons Private Limited, Public Organisations, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Indian Institute of Science (IISc), National Centre of Performing Arts, International Institute for Population Sciences etc, Government Ministries, Departments, organisations that colluded with or whose actions aided the Tatas in their crimes, even if without any overt connection such as by designing fake Forms, or improperly participated in the criminal situation including not revealing the names of officials who designed criminal Forms, and these include: Department of Atomic Energy, Prime Minister’s Office, various Ministries, Department of Personnel & Training, Central Information Commission, Reserve Bank of India, Comptroller and Auditor General, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Indian Administrative Services, State or Union Territory Governments such as those of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Assam, Ladakh etc., appointments Committee of Cabinet and private organisations that colluded with or whose actions aided the Tatas in their crimes.
The Court noted that in the first petition, the petitioner has only leveled bald allegations against respondents which include many companies, trusts, not only present but even past Governments of the nation, constitutional post holders, as well as other public organizations. However, for making such tall claims and leveling allegations of such a nature against the respondents, the petitioner has not placed on record a single piece of evidence or information that would supplement or buttress his claims or arguments. The reliefs prayed such as initiation of criminal prosecution, including giving punishments such as death penalty through firing squads and/or rigorous imprisonment stay on the construction of new Parliament building under Central Vista Project and directing destruction of the same, merely because the contract for development/construction of the same was awarded to one of the companies of respondent no. 7.
The Court further noted that in the second petition, the petitioner has stated that hundreds of organisations and institutes of national importance such as IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, etc. are all criminally established organisations. An examination of this petition also reveals that the petitioner has narrated facts, pertaining to the year 1951 onwards, and then has gone ahead to level allegations against the then Government of India which had allegedly criminally established Viswa Bharati, after which the aforesaid problem had started to arise. The second petition further seeks registration of FIR based on the complaint filed by him on 17-12-2021 against respondent no. 11 i.e. some judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court who had delivered the judgment in case bearing number Civil Appeal No. 6394/2010.
The Court amusingly noted that though the petitioner was informing by way of filing the affidavit that his reasonable belief and pleadings are based on true facts and existing law, the fact that he was born in the year 1972 and he states that his fundamental right was infringed by those events which happened one century earlier.
The Court observed that in the third petition, the petitioner has claims that he has a right to inquire about his own criminal records, and the relevant authorities are under constitutional obligation to provide him with the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the relevant authorities have not acceded to his request to provide him with his criminal record, despite several complaints and appeals being filed by him. “In the said application, the petitioner had claimed that he had been filing police complaints with Delhi Police on matters of extreme public interest and complaints which are against Government of India and crimes committed by the corporates, and since he has been doing so, he apprehends that false cases may have been lodged against him.”
It was further stated that in reply to the said RTI application, the concerned public information officer of Central District, Delhi Police had informed the petitioner that as per reports, no such complaint or FIR has been registered against the RTI applicant i.e. petitioner herein. The petitioner, however, remained dissatisfied with the same. Thus, it is strange that the petitioner is aggrieved that there was no criminal record of him available with the police. It is not understandable why he wants a criminal record to be created by the police against him.
The Court concluded that the reliefs sought before this Court through all the three petitions unequivocally fall short and do not meet the standards of either factual or legal sufficiency. Furthermore, the language employed in the petition is deficient and does not make out a case for grant of any of the reliefs prayed for. The petitioner has failed to show that any of the fundamental rights so claimed by him within the ambit of Article 21 of Constitution i.e. “right to have public organisations which are not criminally established” or “right to seek one’s own criminal records” are covered under Article 21 to further probe any violation of the same.
The Court remarked that on one hand, it is imperative to ensure access to justice which is crucial for safeguarding individual rights, promoting equality, and resolving disputes as it enables individuals to seek redress, however, this cherished access should not be exploited to burden the courts, or manipulate the legal process. The frivolous litigations are clogging the judicial system and have to be dealt with strictly so that time of the Court is not lost for others who have genuine litigations before the Court. The Court also recognized its duty to protect self-represented litigants’ interests, (as the petitioner represented himself and refused assistance of counsel when offered by the Court) however, it cannot be taken to such an extreme that the frivolous and multiple litigations assume overwhelming indulgence consuming time of the Court.
On the aspect of self-represented litigants, the Court noted that self-represented litigants bear certain responsibilities when presenting their case, before the Court. While they may lack legal training, they are still expected to fulfill certain duties to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. They have a duty to critically assess the merits of their claims and consider whether there is a reasonable legal basis for their case. Since frivolous litigation burdens the Court system, wastes judicial resources, and hinders the administration of justice, it is the responsibility of the self-represented litigants to ensure that their case has a genuine legal basis, supported by relevant facts and legal principles. Thus, the embargo of an absence of ethical conduct needs to be addressed by the Bar Council of India, and some guidelines for the establishment of an ethical code for self-represented litigants need to be framed.
Considering that the petitioner in the present case is an alumni of IIT, Delhi and Bombay and has rather remained associated with IIT, Delhi, for long and has himself drafted the petition being fully cognizant of his decision to proceed as a petitioner in person, having a sound understanding of the purpose and legal basis upon which he approached the court, assuming full responsibility for the contents of the petition and possessing relevant and substantiated materials within his possession and control. The Court directed costs of Rs 30,000 each in the petitions.
[Naresh Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4254, decided on 20-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner-in-person;
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for UOI along with Mr. Sunil, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for the State along with Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar, Advocates and with Insp. Subhash Chand, P.S. Parliament Street, Advocates for the Respondents.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Petitioner Contact me I will give u gud remedy …free of charge