2017 INSC 0081
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                      Anindita

                                         Vs.

Pranab Kumar Mukherjee

      WP(Civil)No.....of 2017
                     .

(Dipak Misra and R.Banumathi,JJ.,)

                                      30.01.2017

                                      ORDER

1. None appears for the petitioners.

2. Regard being had to the lis put forth, we do not intend to further adjourn the matter.

3. The writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution, if we allow ourselves to
say so, is absolutely the product of disgruntled minds obsessed with their own litigation.
They have imagined situations which are beyond realm of any kind of justiciability. The
Constitution Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors1.
Has 1clearly held that the President of India cannot be arrayed as a party to the litigation.
Despite the said pronouncement, the petitioners being emboldened by some kind of
imaginative faculty have described the President as Respondent No.1.

4. The prayer in this writ petition is basically for issue of a quo warranto declaring that the
respondent no.2 is not eligible to hold the post or alternatively to issue a writ of mandamus
not to continue on the post in question. It has also made allegations with regard to the
recommendations made by the 2nd respondent herein.

5. The petitioners who are litigants had approached this Court in certain special leave
petitions and could not meet with success. They might have their own perspective regarding
the procedure followed in hearing of their special leave petition (SLP (C) No.6038 of 2016)
and also disposal of their review petition (Review Petition No. 2815 of 2016) but their
perspective cannot be regarded as absolute as they conceive. Their individual grievances do
not confer any right on them to file a writ petition of the present nature. It is an assault on the
Constitution, more so, when the high constitutional authorities are involved. They have, with
incurable audacity, made allegations against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 which are absolutely
unacceptable and, in fact, can never be conceived of. No litigant can be permitted to
browbeat or malign the system. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of the
institution and the public confidence in the delivery of justice. It is sheer malice. The
question of issuance of any kind of writ does not arise. On the contrary, we are disposed to

                                      1           SpotLaw
think that the grievance that has been agitated is absolutely unjusticiable. We are obliged to
state that the petitioners, having filed this petition, have not remained present in Court but we
have perused the petition in detail. The petition, to say the least, is vexatious and, in fact, is
an expression of pervert proclivity.

6. We would have dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs but we do not intend to
do so. However, we observe that in future the petitioners shall be debarred from filing any
kind of public interest litigation in any constitutional court and none of their petition under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution shall be entertained unless they are personally
grieved. If the petitioners deviate from this direction, they shall be liable for contempt of this
Court.

7. At this juncture, we are obliged to say that a litigant has space as far as he is concerned in
the justice dispensation system, but he cannot assume the role that he is the monarch of all he
surveys. His ego, however colossal it may be, deserves condemnation and we do decry.

8. We repeat at the cost of repetition that the petition is absolutely malicious, vexatious and
unjusticiable and accordingly has to pave the path of singular consequence, that is, dismissal.
And we so direct.

9. The writ petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

2  SpotLaw