/2022 INSC 0959/ 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO S. OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO S. 10622 -10623 OF 2022) STATE OF JHARKHAND ... APPELLANT Versus SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA & O RS . ... RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO S. OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO S.11364 -11365 OF 2022) J U D G M E N T Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Leave granted. 1. Th e above two petition s ha ve been filed be fore this Court by the State of Jharkhand through the Resident Commissioner , challenging the order s da te d 03.06.2022 passed by the D ivision Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand , where the High Court has ordered that the PILs filed by respondent no.1 2 before the Jhark hand High Court are maintainable , and thus the High Court decided to proceed with the matter on its merits. The petitioner here poses a challenge to the very maintainability of these two PILs. After hearing the parties at length, this Court vide its order dated 17.0 8.2022 had reserved its orders and directed that meanwhile the High Court shall not proceed further with the mat ter. 2. The question before this Court is whether the petitions which have been filed before the Jharkhand High Court in the f orm of Pub lic Intere st Litigations are maintainable in view of the settled position of law laid down by this Court in several of its earlier decisions . The question is also whether these PILs comply with the provisions of the Rules relating to the Public Interest Litigations , which is the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation ) Rules, 2010 (for short “Rules, 2010”) and if the y do not, were the petit ions filed as PILs liable to be dismissed at the very threshold if they were not in compliance of th e p rovisions of the abo ve Rules relating to PIL . 3. Two public interest litigations petitions were filed before the Jharkhand High Court by the same person , i.e. , Sri Shiv 3 Shankar Sharma . In the first Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 the following relie f w as sought: - “A. For the direction upon the respondents speciall y respondent’s especially respondent no. 31 to enquire into the mo ney transferred of Soren Family in the name of respondent no .’s , 8 to 13 and may also submit the report to Income Tax Depa rt m ent as to how the c ompanies which are 28 in numbers have been used as a parking place for ill gotten money. B. For the direct ion upon the respondent no. 3 to investigate the sources of income of respondent no . 8 to 13 as because they being the clo se friends of Hemant S oren and Basant Soren have invested the money in number of companies as chain of hotels a s it is shown that the owner is Ranjan Sahu and the Hotlips chain of hotels and restaurants which was situated in a small area near the Chief Min is ter's resi dents and later on removed have transformed into six hotel chains situated at Kanke Road, Ratan Lal Complex, Ratu Road, La lpur, Hinoo and Kamre. C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 4 2 also to investigate the f inan cial crime commi tted by Hem ant Soren w hich income has given to Ravi Kejriwal as he is connected to him since childhood and also having close connectio n with Ranjan Sahu, t he s o called owner of Hotlips Chain of hotels and restaurants a nd may also investigate as at which po in t of time and place Mr. Hemant Soren has committed illegality and earned crores of ru pees and invested in the name of these persons. D. For the direction upon the respondent no. 5 to investigate the money trail of crime proceed 1 Resp onden t No.3 is the Central Bureau of Investigation . 2 Responden t No.4 is the Enforcement Direc torate. 4 lying with responden t no. 8 to 1 3 and they have amassed the huge wealth and returning the money at the time of election to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha headed b y Hemant Soren. E. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this c ase .” In the Second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 the following relief was sought: - “A. For the dir ection upon the respondent No.9 to grant sanction for prosecution, to prosecute the “The Chief Minister Cum, Minister Depar tme nt of Mi nes, for act of misuse of office and getting the Mining Lease done in his own name, although, he being a Departmental Min ister/Chief Minister cannot do business (Article 191(9) of Constitution) of mining, and also committed criminal act, so he is liable t o be prose cuted under Section 7(A) and 13(I)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 169 of IPC, and also to ca ncel his membership of assembly of Jharkhand, and also he has violated section 9 of the Peoples’ Representation Act, 1950 & la stly, he has contr avened the code of conduct framed by Union Government for the Hon ’ble Chief Minister & Ministers of States. B. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent No. 1, the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to protect the relevant file of De partment o f Mines wherein, the mining lease of Angadha Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No. 187, Plot No. 482, Area 0.88 Acre fo r that Letter of intent (LOI) was issued on 16.06.21, approval of mining plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approved on 09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent No. 7 has given application, which was approved 5 in its 90 th meeting dated 14 -18 Septe mber, 2021, within such a short time although, the SEIAA has given environmental clearance to new High Court building afte r so many m onths, AND A, directions may be issued to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Enforcement Directorate to investigate t he crime committed by respondent no. 7 & 8. C. For the direction upon the respondent CBI especially also to investigate t he history illegal mi ning committed by the person like the respondent No. 7 and due to his influence, illegal mining is done to publi c properties sold by Mr. Soren against the provisions of law to himself only. D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as th is Hon'b le Court m ay deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case .” In both these writ petitions the respondent s wh ich , inter alia, included the State of Jharkhand as well as the incumbent Chief Minister , Mr. Hemant Soren . A preliminary obje ction as to the ma intainability of the writ petition was raised by these two respondents . O bjection s were also raised that the wr it petition s do no t disclose the particular s and credentials of the petitioner nor does it follow the procedure as mandated by the Rul es , i.e., Rule 4, 4A, 4B ,5 of the Rules, 2010. 4. Since, the Court nevertheless proceeded with the matter , the petitioner ha d earlier filed a petition before this Court challenging the proceedings before the Jharkhand High 6 Court in the form of the se two Publ ic Interes t Litigations. The matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court and the following orders were passed on 24 .05.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 9728 -9730 of 2022: “A batch of three writ petitions is pending before the Division Bench of th e H igh Cou rt of Jhar khand: (i) (In Writ Petition (PIL ) No 4632 of 2019; the petitioner, Arun Kumar Dubey, seeks, inter alia, a directi on to the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate 15 FIRs pertaining to alleged offences arising out of the disbursement o f M ANREGA funds to K hunti Zila Parishad implicating offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 429, 465 and 1208 of the Indian Pena l Code and Sections 11. 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 20 21; the pe titioner, Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for an investigation into the alleged transfer of SLP Cr. 9729 -9730/2022 m onies by the Soren family in the na m es of respondent Nos 8 to 13 through the instrumenta lity of certain shell companies; and 7 (iii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 727 of 2022; the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for sanctioning the prosecution of th e Chief Minister for obtaining a mining lease in his own name implicating offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Co rruptio n Act, 198 8 and the Indian Penal Code. 5. On 22 April 2022, when Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 came up before a Divis ion Bench presided over by the Chief justice, the Court recorded the submission of the c ounsel for the State that "an identi cal writ petition wa s dismissed with costs by this Court filed by the same counsel and the matter went up to the Supreme Court" wher e the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. After issuing certain procedural directions for the impleadement of the Registra r of Compa nies, the Division Bench directed that the proceedings in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 be placed along with the rec ords of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4218 of 2013 on 1.3 May 2022. 6. On 13 May, 2022, the High Court, inter alia, noted the submis sion s of t he State o f Jharkhand objecting to the maintainability of the petition. This was dealt with in the following extract: "A t this juncture, Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State of Jha rkhand, has made a submission that h e ha s to r aise a pre liminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case itself. 8 We would consider the preliminary obje ction and then the merit also, if required, on the next date of hearing" 7. The High Court posted the proceedings on 17 May 2 022. On 17 May 2022, the High Court, after perusing a sealed cover which was tendered on behal f of the Directorate of Enforcement, noted the submission of the petitioner that WP (PIL) No 4362 of 2019 may be placed along side the petition which the High Cou rt w as con sidering o n the next date of hearing and accordingly the proceedings were adjourned to 19 May 2022. On 19 May 2022, the Hi gh Court has passed separate orders in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos 727 of 2022, 4632 of 2019 and 4290 of 2021. The High Court po sted the p roceedings on 24 May 2022 . 8. The Special Leave Petitions have been instituted by the State of Jharkhand in order to challe nge the orders dated 13 May 2022 and 17 May 2022 in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021. 9. We have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, sen ior counse l appearin g on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respond ent (Shri Hemant Soren) and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation an d th e Dire ctorate of Enforcement. 10. Th e sequence of events narrated in the earlier part of the present order indicates that the High Court had, by its 9 order dated 13 May 2022, specifically noted that it would consider the primary objection to the maintaina bili ty of Writ Petit ion (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 and deal with the merits thereafter, if required, on the next date of hearing. 11. Mr Ka pil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has adverted to the provisions of the Jharkhand High Court ( Publ ic Int erest Liti gation) Rules, 201 0, more particularly the provisions of Rules 4, 4 -A, 4 -B and 5. 12. Since the High Court has ob served in its order dated 13 May 2022 that it would deal with the maintainability of the petition upfront, we are of the con side red vi ew that it would be appropri ate in the interests of justice that the Division Bench presided over by the learned Chief jus tice does so before without proceeding to the merits of the public interest litigation. 13. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by th e High Court on th e next date of listing when the proceedings are taken up. Based on the outcome of the objectio ns to the maintainability of the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 14. The Special Lea ve P etitio ns are dis posed of in the ab ove terms. 15. This Court has had no occasion to deal with the merits of the rival contentions w hich arise in the Special Leave Petitions or nor has it become necessary for this Court to express any 10 view on the allegatio ns w hich a re levelle d in the writ petition since th at is a matter which is pending consideration before the High Court. 16. Pending ap plications, if any, stand disposed of. ” 5. Thus, consequent to the orders of this Court dated 24.05.2022 , the Jharkhand High C our t befo re procee ding with the matter had to first give its finding on the maintainability of the two PILs . The High Court after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents has come to a conclusion that an extremely serious matte r has been raised i n th e PILs , where t here are allegations of large - scale corruption at the hands of the present Chief Minister of Jharkhand , and even though there may be some procedural irregularities in filing of the public interest litigations that shou ld not come in the w ay of the C ourt in entertaining th e petition , which is in public interest . Moreover, as to the Rules , (i.e., Rules 4, 4 -A, 4 -B, 5 of the Rules, 2010) which we shall refer shortly, it has been held that they are directory and not mandatory in nature. Conse quen tly , by order d ated 03.06.2022 the Court has held that the PIL s are maintainable and shall be dealt on its 11 merit. This order ha s presently been challenged before this Court. 6. As referred above we are concerned with two writ petitions filed by the priva te respond ent No.1 (i.e., Shiv Shankar Sharma) as Public Interest Litigations before Jharkhand High Court. The first writ petition is W rit Petition (PIL) No . 4 290 of 2021 , where a prayer has been made to direct the Directorate Genera l Income Tax , Investigat ion to enquire into the mone y tr ansfer red by th e Soren family in the name of private respondents through the shell companies and also to investigate the sou rce of income o f private respondents and to investigate the financial crime committed by respondent N o. 6 i.e. Hemant Soren , the pres ent Ch ief Minis ter of Jharkhand , among other reliefs sought in the petitions. 7. The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 202 2 is the one wh ere a direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief Minister, who is also the Mini ster in the Department of Mi nes . The r eason bei ng that he has misused his office in getting a mining lease in his own name. As far as the second writ petit ion is concerne d, a reply has been filed by the State of Jharkhand before the Jharkhand High Court a s well as by the 12 Chief Minis ter, Mr. H emant Sor en that full facts of the case have not been stated by the petitioner in the petition and he has deliberately su ppressed the material facts. The mining lease which is alleged to have been made in favour of the Chief Minister is on a land sit uated in Angadh a Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No.187, Plot No.482 and the total Area of the land is only 0.88 Acres. It was all otted to Mr. Hemant Soren for a period of 10 years between 17.05.2008 to 17.05.2018 after the expir y of the lease period of 1 0 ye ars an applicat ion for its renewal was made belatedly by Mr. Hemant Soren on 06.06.2018 and by that time the lease had lapse d. Subsequently by way of Gazette Notification No. 1 of 2021 which was issued on 27.03.2021 , f resh appl ication s for the mining le ase were invited. A letter of intent was given in favour of Mr. Hemant Soren on 16.06.2021. All the same on 04.02.2022 the respo nde nt No. 7 , i.e ., Mr . Hemant Soren wrote to District Mining Officer, Ranchi for surrendering mining l ease with immediate effect . As per S ection 26 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 a demand for advance of six months of royalty to be deposi ted by Mr. Hemant Soren and the mining lease was surrendered and was 13 accepted under the Rules on 11.02 .2022. Therefore, accordin g to the r espondent at the time of filing of the second writ petition (PIL) No.727 of 2022, there was no mining lease in favour of respondent No. 7 as it had already stood surrendered. In its reply dated 05.05.2022 , the State of Jharkhand has also stated that altho ugh the l ease was renewed in favour of the Mr. Hemant Soren no mining activity or extraction of stone took p lace on th e m ining lease area. Further , in this regard if any anomaly has been committed and respondent No. 7 has to suffer a disqualifica tion from his offic e, for having a mining lease in his favour , t he matter in this regard is pending inquiry before the Election Com mission of India in a Reference case No. 3(G) of 2022 which is registered on the reference received from the Hon’ble Governor of Jharkh and under Article 192 3 of the Constitution of India. The Election Commission of India has issued a notice to the Chief Se cretary on 08.04.2022 seeking certain information which had been duly supplied by the 3 Article 192. Decision on q uestions as to disqualifications of members — (1) If any question arises as to whether a member o f a House of the Legisla ture o f a S tate h as become subject to any of the disqualifications me ntioned in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referre d for the decision of the Governor and his de cision shall be final. (2) Before giving any decisi on o n any such question, the G overn or sha ll obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion 14 State vide its letter dated 26.04.2022. In other words, this matter as regarding the mining lease in favour of the Chief Minister, i.e., Mr. Heman t Soren and his disqu ali fication from office, is pending consideration with the Election Commission of India . So much for th e second writ petition wh ich in our view is totally an abuse of the process of this Court. 8. Regarding the first Writ Petition No. (PI L) 4290 of 2021 the alle gations which had been made of money laundering and money being invested in shell companies are agai n mere allegations. The peti tione r ha s actu ally sought an investigation by the Court . It prays for a writ of mandamus in this regard to the Investigatin g A gencies such as CBI or Enforcement Directorate to investigate . This in our view is again an abuse of the process of the Court , as the p etition i s short of wild and sweeping allegations, there is nothing placed before the Court which in any way may be ca lle d to be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable and the clear fa ct that he has not approa ched the C ourt with clean hands makes it a case which was liable to be dismissed a t the very threshold . 15 9. This Court in Kunga Nim a L epcha v. State of Sikkim 4 under similar circumstances has held that a writ court is not an appropria te forum for seeking an i niti ation of such an investigation. A reference to the facts of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for our purposes. In th e above case, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed directly before this Co urt where the petitioner had allege d that th e incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim (impleaded responden t No.2 ) had misused his public office a nd had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It was also alleged that the Chie f Minister has misappropr iate d a la rge volum e of public money at the cost of Government of India and the Governmen t of Sikkim. Thus, the relief sought by th e petitioner was for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the allegations t hat have been made agains t th e Chie f Ministe r. This Court declined to intervene in the matter holding that a const itutional court is not a forum to seek red ressal of this nature. The remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be gra nted as a 4 (2010) 4 SCC 513 16 matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are available to the petitio ner . In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgement it was said as follows: “14 . In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather vague argumen t that the alleged acts o f co rrupti on on par t of Shri Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find an y merit in this assertion because the guarantee of “equal protection before the law” or “equality be fore the law” is violated if there is an unr easonable discrimination between two or more individuals or between two or more classes of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts of misapprop riation from the public exchequer cannot be automatically equated with a violation of the guarantee of “equal protecti on before the law”. 15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact that the alleged acts can easily come within th e ambit of statutory offen ces such as those of “possession of assets disproportionate to known sourc es of income” as well as “cri minal misconduc t” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The onus of launching an investigation into such matters is cle arly on the investigating agencies such as the State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) o r the Central Vigilance C ommi ssion (CVC) amo ng others. It is not proper for this Court to give directions for initiating such an investigation under its wri t jurisdiction. 16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme Court of India as well as the va rious 17 High Courts have in deed grant ed remedi es relating to investigations in criminal cases, we must make a careful note of the petitioners' prayer in th e p resent case. In the past, writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the progress of ongoing investi gations or to transfer on goin g inve stigation s from one investigating agency to another. Such directions have been given when a specific violation of fund ame ntal rights is shown, whic h could be the consequence of apathy or partiality on the part of investig ating agencies among othe r re asons. In some cases, judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account of obstructions to the inves tig ation process such as mate rial threats to witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure f rom powerful interests. I n al l of t hese circ umstances, the writ court can only play a corrective role to ensure that the integrity of the investigation i s n ot compromised. However, i t is not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigati on. That function clearly lie s in t he domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produc ed before them provides a suf ficient basis to launch an investigation. 17 . It must also be borne in mi nd that there are provisi ons in the Code of C riminal Procedure which empower the courts of first instance to exercise a certain degree of control over on goi ng investigations. The sco pe for intervention by the trial court is hence controlled by statutory pr ovisions and it is not ad visa ble fo r the wri t courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absence of specific standards for the same.” 18 10. This Cou rt , thus declined to interfere in the matter holding that the petitioner must approach the investiga ting agenc ies directly wi th t he inc riminatin g material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decide on the further course of action. Although an apprehension was rais ed by this Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to unco ve r alleged corruption ma y be obstr ucted by entrenched interest s, yet statutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhausted and only the rea fter can he approach the High Court. In the present case no such effort has been made by the respond en t (i.e. , the petitioner in the PI L) to app roach the statutory authorit ies in any manner whatsoever. The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a w rit of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority an d only when it is denie d th e Cour t can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the present Public Interest Litigations before us , it is a n admitted fact that the resp ondent has not taken any steps in 19 approaching the statutory authorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR. 11. Publ ic Interest Litigation was a novel form adopted by this Court in the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s to hear the grievance s of th e vas t section of the society which were poor , marginalized and had no means to reach the Supreme Court for articulating their grievance . It was thus the Public Interest Litigation which became the means by which a voice was gi ve n to th is large voice less secti on of our society (See: State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. 5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. 6). The strict procedures of the Court were dispensed in a PIL , and in its early stages a PIL could also be en te rtained on a mere let ter , or a postcard ! It is for these reasons it has also come to be known as epistolary j urisdictio n. This Court in Balwant Singh Ch aufal (supra) while dealing with origin and development of PIL in this country has divided its growth in to three phases which has been given in its Para 43 as under : - “Phase -I: It deals with cases of t his Court w here directions and orders were passed 5 (2010) 3 SCC 402 6 (1987) 1 SCC 395 20 prim arily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the so ci ety who because of ex treme pove rty, illi teracy and ignorance cannot approach this court or the High Courts. Phase -II: It deals with the cases relating t o protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. e tc. Phase -III : It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining th e probity, transparency and integrity in go vernance. ” This Court then traced the abuse of the Public Interest Litigation and observed that this i mp ortant jurisdiction has co me to be abus ed, at the hands of ill motivated individuals, busy bodies and public ity seekers. A reference was then made to t he cases of BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors. 7 and Neetu v. State of Punjab 8 whe re frivolous cases fil ed as PILs were dis couraged and even costs were imposed on the petitioner in such cases. The credentials of the applicant who file s a PIL was held to be of extreme importance as also the correctness of the nature of 7 (2002) 2 SCC 333 8 (2007) 10 SCC 614 21 information gi ven by the petitioner whi ch had to be clear , not vague or indefinite or even generalized . It was also held that n obody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations, demeaning the character of others. The following directions were given in Pa ra 181 of Balwant Sing h Chau fal (supra): - “(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effe ctively discourage and curb the PIL filed f or extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dea lin g with the public i nteres t li tigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate ru les for encouraging the genuine PIL and dis couraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have no t y et framed the rules , shou ld f rame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court i s directed to ensure that a copy of the rul es prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this Court immediately thereafter. (3) The Courts should p rima f acie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied rega rding the correctness of the 22 contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The Courts sho uld be fully satisfied th at sub stan tial publ ic interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The Co urts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before ente rtaini ng t he PIL sh ould ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also en sure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public inter est litigation. (8) The Courts sho uld also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulte rior motives must be discouraged by imposin g exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous con sidera tion s. ” Con sequent to above directions made by this Court in Balwant Singh Chauf al (supra) every High Court has framed its rules for dealing with Public Interest Litigation including the Jharkhand High Court. For our purpose th e relevant Rules woul d be Ru le s 4, 4 -A, 4 -B, 5 and 6. These Rules are reproduced as under : - 23 “4. The petition er in a Public Interest Litigation shall st ate in clear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph -1 of the petition and grounds in paragraph -2 there of. In paragraph -3, t he petit io ner shall give his/her full and complete details so as to reveal his/her inter est, credentials and qualifications relevan t for the Public Interest Litigation , along with a declaration that he/she has no pers onal interest, dir ect or indirect, in t he subje ct matter o f Public Interest Litigation . In addition, the petitioner shall set o ut all relevant facts along with available supporting data, reports etc. 4-A. If a Public Interest Litigation is filed by a person on behalf of a Bo dy of Individuals, by what ev er name c alled, whether registered or unregistered and whether incorporated or not, the petition must give full details a nd history of such Body, and must also clearly specify the authority of that person to represent such Bo dy in that Litigation so as t o make the decision therein binding on all individuals of such Body. 4-B. Ever y Public Interest Litigation will chronolog ically mention in detail all such other and earlier efforts with the ir result, which are within the peti tio ner’s knowledge, a nd which have been m ade by the petitioner or others for obtaining the relief sought by t he Public Interest Litigation. 5. To encou rage only genuine and bona fide Public Interest Litigation and disco urage Public Interest Litigation fil ed for extraneous con siderati on s, the Be nch hearing a Public Interest Litigation shall first verify the prima facie credentials of the Petitioner before entertaining any case as Public Interest Litigation . Thereafter, no tice may be issued to 24 the Advocate G ene ral or to any othe r author ity to enab le the Bench hearing the matter to come to a prima facie satisfaction regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition or information before entertaining the same as Publi c Interest Litigation . 6. For the a for esaid purpose, a Public In te rest Liti gation , shall first be listed with appropriate office notes under the heading “For Orders” before the appropriat e Division Bench . 6-A. The above procedure may be relaxed by the co ncerned Bench, for reasons to be rec ord ed, in cases which call fo r such urge nt intervention by the Court that it is not practicable to allow the delay which may be caused in following the above procedure. ” The above Rules, 2010 were made pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in th e c ase of Balwant Sin gh Chauf al (supra) . Rules were to be framed so that it is no more lef t to the in dividual judges to devise their own procedure, but to ensure uniformity in entertaining a PIL , and to encourage genuine PIL and discourage PIL which are fi led with oblique moti ve. In o ne of the directions, it was said as under: “(2) Instead of every indivi dual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing w ith the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate ru les for encouraging t he genui ne PIL an d discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently , we request that the High Courts 25 who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court i s directed to ensure that a c op y of th e rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary Gen eral of this Court immediately thereafter. ” There fore , the importance of these Rules can never be under est im ated. 12. What is of crucial significance in a Pub lic Interest Litigat ion is th e bona fid e of the petitioner who file s the PIL. It is an extremely releva nt consideration and must be examined by the Cou rt at the very threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause b ein g espoused by the petition er in a PI L. 13. Let us now examine the nature of the PIL which is before us , i.e., W.P. (PIL) No. 42 90 of 20 21 . The petitione r who had filed th is PIL as well as the other PIL (W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 20 22), and the reliefs in them hav e already been ref erred ab ov e. It is an admitted case that in the year 2013 a similar petition was filed being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 (Diwan Ind ranil Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Jhark hand H igh Court on 22.11.20 13 , with costs of R s. 50,000/ - and thereafter an SLP was filed 26 against this order b efore this Court which was also dismissed by ord er dated 28.02.2014 . What is necessary for our consideration is that though the said petition was filed by a different person , i.e., Sr i Diwan I ndranil Sinha , but this was in the knowledge of the petitioner in this PIL, as the counsel for the petitioner in the earlier petition , i.e., in W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 , and the counsel in the present petition , ar e the same . T herefore , it can be reasona bly presumed that the dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 20 13 would be in the knowledge of the petitioner . Yet the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 42 90 of 20 21 did not even mentio n the earlier w rit petition or the fac t that it was dism issed by the High C ourt with costs on 22.11.2013 . The fact that it was in the know ledge of the petitioner is evident as in the pet ition ( W.P. (PIL) No. 42 90 of 20 21) , a supplementary affidavit was filed on 20.04.2022 where the petitio ner (Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma) does menti on that one Diwan Indranil Sinha (i.e., the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 ) had approached constituti onal authorities about the alleged mi sdeeds of the Chief Minister of Jharkhand . I n Paras 3 and 4 the fol low ing was stated : 27 “3. That , the petit ioner states that, prior to him one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha h as sent representations with all the details of the companies & the documents in supp ort of the illegal earnings before the Hon’ble President of India , Hon’ble Home Minist er Hon’b le Governor Jharkhand, The Director C.B.I. The Director, Enforcement Direct orate The Central Vigilance Commissioner The Dir ector, General, (Investigation, Incom e Tax.) Photocopies of the receipts showing detailed representati on sent by Late Diwa n Indran il Sinha be fore various authorities dt. 16.11.14 & 21.01.14 are annexed an d marked as Annexure -4 Series to this applicatio n. 4. That, the petitioner states that, the efforts taken earlier by Late Diwan Indranil Sinha, wherei n, the representation sent by him has be en received by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and has enqu ired on their own Level and communicated to him Vide Letter No. 376 dated 05.11.14, stating there in that “3. You may, if so desire, approach the compe ten t court or, suitab le direc tion in the matter.” Thus, it is clear that, there was prima facie material available before them, for proceeding in the ma tter. 28 Photocopy of the Letter No.376 dt. 5.11.14 of C.B.I. is annexed and marked as Annexure -5 to t his application.” In the rep ly filed by the State of Jharkhand before the High Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4 290 of 2021, an objection was taken regarding th e suppression of the earlier writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 as well. Hence, it is clea r t hat the petition er did not ap proach th is Court with clean hands as he did not disclose the dismissal o f the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 by the Jharkha nd High Court with costs (order dated 22.11.2013), an order which was upheld by this Court in SLP No. 4 886 of 2014 by orde r d ated 28 .02 .2014. Th is is also a clear violation of Rule, 4B of the Rules, 2010 whic h required the petitioner to disclose of all sim ilar efforts made in the past. 14. No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 can be r ela xed under Rule 6, fo r the reas ons to be recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgent interv ention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow any delay to be caused in the matter. Presently , there is no finding or order of the Jharkhand Hig h Co urt that any fur ther delay in this m atter would have made the petition infructuous 29 or redundant, wh ich may have justified the relaxation of the Rul es . To the contrary , the Jharkhand High Court has held that Rules 4, 4A, 4B and 5 are not mandatory b ut dire ctory in nature in vie w of Rule 6 -A and therefore even though the Rules have not been followed that really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL , since the nature of allegations in the PIL w as of a serious nature . This reasoning, in our view, is in teet h of t he d ecision o f this Court in directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court Rules , primarily Rule 4 -B. 15. At this stage , let us now see as to what the Jha rkhand High Court had to s ay in the year 2013, while dismissing W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 . While dismis sing that PIL, with costs of Rs. 50,000/ - it was said as under : - “17. Time and again, it has been held that Public Interest Litigation is a weapon whi ch has to be used with gre at car e and cir cumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of ‘public inter est ’ an ugly privat e malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. Though the par ame ters of 'Public Intere st L itigat ion' have been indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of case s, yet unmindful of t he 30 real intention and objec tions, number of Pu blic Interest Litigation are filed. 18. The petitioner has not approached the con cerned. authorities at the relev ant point of time. The petitioner has chosen to file this Public Interest Litigation only after respondent No.1 0 has ass umed the Office of Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand. We do not find any bona fide in this P ubl ic Interest Litigation fil ed by the writ petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 19. In the facts and circumstances of th e case, we are of t he view that there is no bona fide in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the pe titioner. The writ pet itio n is d ismissed w ith cost of Rs. 50,000/ -(fifty thousand). This amount, of cours e, will be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 6(six) we eks from today before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, "Nyaya Sadan" , D oranda, Ranchi. The Re gist ry is hereby di rected to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Jha rkhand State Legal Services Authority. ” The dis missal of a similar PIL was a fact which was also not disclosed by the petitioner, which he w ould be du ty bound to do so in v iew of Rul e 4 -B of the Rules, 2010. This Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & 31 Ors. 9 had this to say on the credentials of the person who files a PIL, has stated as under : - "4. When there is material to sh ow that a petition sty led as a p ublic int erest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Bef ore w e grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the iss ue regarding public inter est aspect . Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important fiel d in the administration of law should not be " publi city interest litigation" or ''private interest litigation" or ''politics interest litigation" or the latest trend ''pai se i ncome litigatio n". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest 'involved in the litig ati on and not merely an a dven ture o f kn ight errant or poke one ’s noses into for a probe. It cannot also be i nvoked by a person or a body of persons to furth er his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justic e s hould not be allowed to be pollu ted by un scrupulous litigants by resorting to the extra -ordinary jurisdic tion . A person acting bona fide and having suffi cient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation wi ll alone have a locus standi and ca n approach the Court to w ipe out vi olation o f fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisi ons, but not for personal gain or private p rofit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in T he Janata Oaf case (supra ) an d Kazi Lhendup D orji v. Central Bureau of 9 AIR 2004 SC 280 32 Investigation, (1994 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 als o w ith a clean heart, cle an m ind an d clean o bjective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 8 52) and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand ( 1994 (6) SCC 620). XXX XXX XXX 12. Public interest liti gat ion is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extre mely careful to see that behind the beautif ul ve il of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking fs not lurkin g. It Is to be used as an eff ective weapon i n the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citize ns. The attractive brand name of public int erest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong o r pu blic i njury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indi cated above, 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 pers ona l gain or private moti ve ' or pol itical mo tivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allo w its process to be abused for oblique cons idera tions. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process ei the r by force of habit or fro m impr oper moti ves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or che ap popularity. The petitions of such busy b odies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary cos ts. 33 XXX XXX XXX 14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) t he pr ima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and in definite. The informat ion should show gra vity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance betwe en two conflicting interests; (i) nobody sh ould be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others: and (ii) av oidance of public misc hief and t o avoid m ischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motive, just ifiable executive actions. In such case, ho wever , the Court c annot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public gr ieva nce, i t does no t encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the, Executive and the Legislature. The Court ha s to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public -spirited holy m en. They m asquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publi co though they have no interest of th e Public or even of their own to protect. XXX XXX XXX 16. As noted supra , a time h as come t o weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It i s shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigat ion s whe re even a minuscule percentage can legi timately be called as public interes t l itigations. Though the pa rameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet 34 unmindful of the real intentions and objec tiv es, Courts are entertaini ng such pe titions a nd wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could b e otherwise utilized for disposal of genuin e cas es. Though in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Or s. (AIR 1999 SC 114), this Court hel d that in service matters PILs shou ld not be entertained, the inflow of so · called PILs involving service ma tters continues unabated in the Courts and stran gely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the sa id decision. The other in teresting aspect is that in the PILs. official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner ca me to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possess ion . It was stated that a pa cket was l ying on t he road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he f ound copies of the official documents. When ever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismis s t he petitioners but also t o impose e xemplary costs. If would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the fr ivolous petitions and dismiss them with cos ts as afore -stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique m oti ve do not have the approv al of the Courts. ” 16. The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of li tigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse th e process of the Court for the ir p olitical purposes or for any other reason, b ut for a Public Cause. 35 17. Petitioner in this case is admittedly t he son of Dr. Gautam Sharma who was one of the w itnesses for the prosecution in a criminal case 10 against the father of the present Chief Minister and therefore the Chief Min is ter has alleged a n old enmity and personal vendetta at the hands of the petitione r. To our mind, in spite of such object ion the P IL could have been heard had the petitioner come before the Court with clean hands. He has delibe rate ly and wilfully withheld from the Court tha t an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4218 of 2013 ) was filed on similar grounds seeking similar reliefs which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court on 22.11.2013 with costs , an order which w as u pheld by the Supreme Cou rt vide or der dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No. 4886 of 2014. 18. Furthermore, the allegati ons which were made by the petitioner are vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence. Alleg ations of corruption an d s iphonin g of mone y from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation , witho ut substantiating the allegations in any manner whatsoever and 10 Sessions C ase No. 3 of 2006 before Addit ional Sessi ons Judge, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, in a case of Section 302, 201 IPC. 36 is therefore only asking the Court to direct Central Bureau of Investigation or the Dire ctorate of Enforcement to invest igate the matter. This is nothing but an abuse o f the process of the cour t. 19. The Courts cannot allow its process to be a bused for oblique purposes, as was observed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Be ngal 11 . In Balwant Singh Ch aufa l (sup ra ) this C ourt had discussed the three stages o f a PIL which has been dis cussed above. Then this Court in Balwant Singh C haufal (supra ) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by ob serving as under: “143. Unfort unately, o f late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured wit h great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some peti tions with oblique motives . We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation sh ould be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this impor tant jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps t o prevent and cure its abuse 11 (2004) 3 SCC 349 37 on the basis of mon etary and non -monetary directions by the courts. ” This Court then refers to the case of Holicow P ictur es (P) Ltd. v. Prem C hand Mishr a12 which h as relied on the Judgement of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Ch owdhary 13 , at Para 10 said as under: “12 . It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before th e cou rts, innumerable days are waste d, which t ime otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spar e no effort s in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to th e poor, the ignorant, the oppre ssed and t he needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepr esented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimat e gri evances relating to c ivil matte rs involvi ng properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal c ases in which persons sentenced to de ath facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration f or lo ng years, persons suf feri ng fro m undue de lay in service matters — government or private, persons awaiting th e disposal of cases wherein huge amou nts of publ ic revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their releas e fro m the 12 (2007) 14 SCC 281 13 (1992) 4 SCC 305 38 detention order s, e tc. et c. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and havin g their gri evances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners hav ing absolutely no public i nter est ex cept for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneou s motivatio n or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public in teres t litigation and get into the c ourts 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 crea tes frustration in th e mi nds of the genui ne litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administratio n of our judicial system. 20. Now let us see what are the nature of allegations which have been made by the petitioner in the PIL filed before the Jharkh and High Court. Petit ione r alle ges that t he one of the respondents who is the present Chief Minister of J harkhand has amassed a huge wealth by corrupt me ans by abusing his position as a Chief Minister and has invested this money in about 32 companies of wh ich description has b een given. The petit ioner then gives details of these companies as to who are the Di rectors, etc. The respondent or his relatives ar e not the 39 Directors of the Companies. But then the petitioner states that he has information tha t he ha s been siphoning off thi s mone y and inve sting it in these shell companies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly a close associate of the Chief Mini ster. The allegations of the respondent of money laundering through shell companies has not been su pplem ented by any kind of evi dence, whatsoeve r. The names of pe rsons who are allegedly responsible for the op eration of these companies have been mentioned , but without producing any concrete evidence , it has been stated that these persons are connected/c lose a ides or related to th e Ch ief Mi nister. Fu rther, none of the companies have been made a party to the prese nt PILs , before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is sought from the High Court to direct the Enforcement D irectorate to investigate these so ca lled “shell companies ” wi thout even makin g the companies a party in the writ proceedings . It is also an a dmitted fact that in relation to present two PIL s, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police or any autho rity agitating the grievances an d the se petitions have bee n filed be fore the H igh Court , without availing the statutory remedies. 40 21. We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these gener alized submissions w hich do no t even mak e prima facie satisfaction of the Court , is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court . The non - disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been manda ted under the Rules, 201 0 furt her discre dits these petitions. The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the High C ourt. In our view, such a petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has a genuin e reason to pursue t he m atter, he has hi s remedies available under the Companies Act or under other prov isions of the law where he can apprise the relev ant authorities of the misdeeds of the Directors or Promotors of the Companies. But on generalized averm ents which are nothi ng b ut mer e allegati ons at this stage, the C ourt cannot be come a forum to investi gate the alleged act s of misdeeds against h igh constitutional authorities . It was not pro per for the Hi gh C our t to entertain a PIL which is based on m ere alleg ations and half bake d trut h that to o at the hands of a person who has not been 41 able to ful ly satisfy his credential s and has come to the C ourt with un clean hands. 22. Consequently, we all ow the present appeals and set aside the order of 03.06.2022 pa ssed by the Jharkhand Hi gh Co urt i n W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 and W.P. No. (PIL) 727 of 2022 . ………………………… C JI. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) .…………………… ………J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) .……………………………J. (SUDHANSHU DHULIA) New D elhi November 07, 2 022