Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

On Wednesday, a division bench of Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor while hearing various PILs asked the petitioners to prove their bonafide.

The division bench of the principal seat at Bombay takes up Public Interest Litigation every week on Wednesday. 

The division bench disposed of two pleas filed by lawyers while questioning how were the lawyers concerned with the cause. The bench said that the lawyers could register themselves with the legal aid services.

"If you want to espouse social cause then register yourself in legal aid and provide pro bono services," the bench said. 

While disposing of another of the PIL's Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar said,

"Frivalous petition..Bring some cause that brings change to society. We are not able to take up other matters due to such litigations," Justice Jamdar said.

The division bench while hearing this petition also said that the Supreme Court guidelines clearly state that the petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation should not have an interest in the matter. 

The high court while hearing these petitions remarked that the high court could remove the petitioner, appoint an amicus, and also take suo moto cognisance of media reports.

"We can remove the petitioner and appoint an amicus and continue with the cause. If you want to be associated with the cause, file your particulars. We are not saying the cause is not genuine. We are saying, the petitioner is not genuine. We can take suo motu cognizance of media reports and go on with a matter without you. Why do we need you for that?” the court remarked. 

The high court on Wednesday also heard another PIL filed against the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Eknath Shinde for allegedly calling 2,00,000 people from across the state, with about 1,700 buses from the Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) being deployed to facilitate transportation during the Dussehra rally. 

Pertinently, the details of the petitioner were missing in the PIL filed against the Chief Minister. The high court said that it could dismiss the petitioner on grounds of missing details itself.

"This is yet another petition where the details of the petitioner have not been stated. We could dismiss the petition on this ground alone," the bench said.

However, after Advocate Nitin Satpute appearing for the petitioner informed the court that it would prove its bonafide, the bench granted time for filling an affidavit.

All the petitions that the high court was hearing had details missing about the petitioner. The court asked the petitioner to disclose their source of information, source of income, and their occupation. 

The bench also cautioned the counsels that if the bench was not satisfied with bonafide then it would dismiss the petitions. The bench also remarked that the registry should have flagged such an absence of details before listing it on the board.