"No bona fide intentions": Allahabad HC rejects PIL filed by dismissed Jailor seeking prison reforms

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed seeking a direction, among others, for certain prison reforms. The plea was filed by a jailor, who had been dismissed from service, on ground of misconduct. 

Through the PIL plea, the dismissed jailor had also sought direction to quash an order passed by the Superintendent of Jail (Headquarters), Prison Administration and Reforms Services, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow upholding the actions recommended on the basis of a joint inquiry report against the officers/employees of the Jail Department who had been found erring.

The division bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Om Prakash Shukla opined that the petitioner's said request seemed related to his personal feud with a district jail superintendent and it also reflected his own interest. "Such a prayer, in our considered opinion, cannot be considered and gone into by this Court in a public interest litigation," the bench held. 

Through the present PIL, though the petitioner, who was working as jail superintendent at District Jail, Moradabad before his dismissal, had made prayers pertaining to the improvement of the condition of the jails across the state, he essentially sought a direction to be issued to the State Government to take some action against a jailor presently posted as Jail Superintendent, District Jail Sultanpur.

Taking note of this fact, court refused to entertain the petitioner's prayers in a public interest litigation.

Importantly, regarding petitioner's one prayer seeking direction to get a high-level inquiry conducted by some independent agency, other than the agency of State Government, into the affairs of the jails in the State of Uttar Pradesh including the District Jail, Moradabad concerning the alleged inhuman conditions of the prisoners in the jails, court opined that though the same could have been entertained in the present PIL, however, the credentials of the petitioner and his apparent primary motive were not as such that the said prayer could be entertained in a PIL. 

While passing the order, the division bench emphasised that the Supreme Court in various pronouncements has held that scope of entertaining a petition as a public interest litigation in the matters involving service of an employee encompasses in itself examination of locus standi of a person approaching the court.

Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, (2005), the high court said that the court in such matters has to be satisfied about the credentials of the person approaching the court, prima facie, the correctness of the nature of information furnished by him, and the information being not vague and indefinite.

Court stressed that though "no one can dispute the ill impacts caused by the corruption by public servants and its all-pervasiveness", however, "for entertaining a public interest litigation of a nature of the present case, the court needs to be satisfied first with the credentials of the person approaching the court".

Therefore, while highlighting that it found that the petitioner had not approached the court with any bona fide intentions, the division bench dismissed the present PIL. 

"The malice on his part, as a matter of fact, is writ large in this case," the bench observed. 

However, keeping in view the larger public interest, the court opined that since certain prayers were made in the PIL plea for issuing appropriate directions to the state authorities for improving the conditions of the prisoners in the jails of State of Uttar Pradesh and also in relation to payment of wages to them etc., therefore, it would be apt to attach the present plea with the pleas already pending before the high court pertaining to the similar issue.

Accordingly, court ordered the paper book of the present petition to be tagged with the petition pending at the Principal Bench. 

Case Title: Reevan Singh v. State of UP and Others