"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands" PIL Dismissed for Lack of Bona Fides and Suppression of Material Facts, Rules Jharkhand HC
W.P. (PIL) No. 3634 of 2024
Binod Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand & Others
Facts
The case concerns allegations of misuse of MLA Local Area Development Funds, wherein a sitting MLA is accused of illegally recommending and diverting public funds to private institutions, trusts, and NGOs linked to him, in violation of prescribed guidelines, and the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation challenging such alleged irregularities.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the present petition qualified as a bona fide Public Interest Litigation under the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, and whether the petitioner possessed the necessary credentials and locus standi to maintain such a petition.
Judgment and Reasoning
The High Court undertook an extensive examination of the law relating to Public Interest Litigation and emphasized that PIL is an extraordinary jurisdiction meant to protect the rights of the poor, disadvantaged, and voiceless sections of society. The Court reiterated that this jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be misused by persons acting with oblique motives or personal vendetta.
The Court noted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his criminal antecedents and had falsely claimed credentials that were not supported by record. Such suppression, according to the Court, struck at the very root of bona fides required in a PIL petitioner.
Relying upon a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court observed that PIL cannot be permitted to become a tool for publicity-oriented litigation, private disputes, or political motives. The Court held that before entertaining a PIL, it must be satisfied about the petitioner’s credentials, the correctness of the information supplied, and the existence of genuine public interest.
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner failed to meet these essential requirements. It held that complex disputed questions of fact relating to alleged financial irregularities could not be adjudicated in a PIL, particularly when the petitioner himself lacked credibility.
Decision / Holding
The High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, holding that it was not maintainable due to lack of bona fide credentials and suppression of material facts by the petitioner. The Court declined to issue any directions for investigation or protection as prayed for.
Ratio Decidendi
A Public Interest Litigation can be entertained only when the petitioner approaches the Court with clean hands, genuine credentials, and bona fide intent. PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked by persons with questionable antecedents or for settling personal scores, and courts must strictly guard against its misuse.
Significance of the Case
This case reinforces judicial caution against the growing misuse of Public Interest Litigation and reaffirms that PIL is not a remedy for personal grievances or political rivalry. It underscores the duty of courts to scrutinize the credentials of the petitioner at the threshold to preserve the sanctity of PIL jurisprudence
.