Read Time: 05 minutes
CJI Chandrachud while dismissing the said plea observed that it was a clear example of a PIL which is an abuse of the process of the Court and must be discouraged by the award of appropriate cost.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on a litigant seeking a direction for reclassification of the caste system to eliminate discrimination.
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed that the instant plea was a clear example of a PIL which is an abuse of the process of the Court and must be discouraged by the award of appropriate costs.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the Petition and directed that the petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs 25,000 to the Advocate’s Welfare Fund of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Advocate Sachin Gupta had filed the instant plea invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution for directing the Union of India “to frame a policy for reclassification of the caste system to eliminate discrimination within the spirit of constitution to make progressive democratic civilized society” and for other reliefs.
While observing that such reliefs could not be asked for, the petitioner was further directed to produce a receipt in regard to the payment of costs to the Registry within a period of two weeks.
Notably, the next item that was called out before the CJI led bench, was another PIL filed by the same petitioner.
This second PIL by Gupta sought for a direction to all States and Union Territories to frame a policy to phase out “reservation in gradual manner and make alternative policy”.
Remarking that said "invocation under the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the court", the bench went on to dismiss the same with additional costs of Rs 25,000 payable to the Advocate’s Welfare Fund of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Altogether, Advocate Gupta has been asked to deposit costs totaling to Rs. 50,000. Earlier today, the top court had also refused to entertain a plea by a student challenging use of male terminology in constitutional provisions like "Chairman" instead of "Chairperson."
"You should study in law school properly, rather than filing such petitions under Article 32. You really think constitutional provisions should be struck down for such reasons..We should start imposing costs now..", CJI had said while dismissing the said petition.
Case Title: ADVOCATE SACHIN GUPTA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Please Login or Register
