Summary
Two PILs in the Jharkhand High Court sought CBI and ED investigation of alleged money laundering by Chief Minister Hemant Soren through shell companies, and his prosecution over a mining lease. The High Court held them maintainable, treating the PIL Rules as directory. The Supreme Court reversed and set that order aside. The petitioner had suppressed the dismissal, with costs, of a similar 2013 PIL brought through the same counsel, in breach of Rule 4-B. His allegations were vague and unsupported, and he had approached no statutory authority. The mining-lease question was already pending before the Election Commission. Following Kunga Nima Lepcha, a writ court should not order the start of an investigation on bare allegations.
Issues
- Whether PILs seeking a writ directing investigation by the CBI and ED into alleged corruption by the Chief Minister, and his prosecution over a mining lease, were maintainable despite non-compliance with the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.
- Whether the PIL Rules are merely directory and could be disregarded because the allegations were serious.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5, 6 and 6-A, Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010The petitioner must disclose credentials and all earlier efforts for the same relief, and the Bench must verify bona fides; non-disclosure of the earlier dismissed PIL breached Rule 4-B, and no reasons were recorded for relaxation. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaA writ court may correct an ongoing investigation but should not order the initiation of an investigation on vague allegations where statutory remedies have not been availed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 21)
- Article 192, Constitution of IndiaThe question of disqualification arising from the mining lease was pending before the Election Commission on the Governor's reference. (¶ 7)
Held
- The bona fides of a PIL petitioner must be examined at the threshold; the petitioner suppressed that an identical PIL filed through the same counsel had been dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 in 2013 and the SLP dismissed in 2014, violating Rule 4-B and showing he did not come with clean hands, and his locus was further clouded by alleged personal enmity. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 16, 17)
- Rules framed pursuant to Balwant Singh Chaufal cannot be treated as merely directory; relaxation under Rule 6-A requires recorded reasons showing urgency, and the High Court's view that the Rules could be ignored given the gravity of allegations runs contrary to that decision and to Rule 4-B. (¶¶ 11, 14)
- Following Kunga Nima Lepcha, it is not for a writ court to direct the initiation of an investigation; the petitioner had filed no FIR or complaint, the allegations about shell companies were bald and the companies were not impleaded, and the mining lease, already surrendered, was the subject of a pending reference before the Election Commission, so both petitions were an abuse of process liable to dismissal at the threshold. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20, 21)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8233-8234 of 2022 allowed; the Jharkhand High Court's order dated 03.06.2022 holding W.P. (PIL) Nos. 4290 of 2021 and 727 of 2022 maintainable set aside.