PIL against President of India: Petitioners barred from filing PILs

Source:- timesofindia.indiatimes.com

NEW DELHI: Filling a PIL against President Pranab Mukherjee proved costly to petitioners with the Supreme Court on Monday barred them from filling any PIL in future in all courts saying that no litigant could be permitted to browbeat or malign the system and the high constitution functionaries.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi said that the apex court had clearly held in its judgement that the President of India cannot be arrayed as a party to a litigation and the rapped the petitioners, including one Ms Anindita, for filling a plea against Pranab Mukherjee. She had sought direction from the Court to declare that the President was not eligible for the post.

“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 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,” it said.

“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,”the bench said.

“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. 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,” the bench said.