- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Sri K.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Jitendra Nayak for the Union of India.
(2.) Following are the five prayers in this writ petition :- "1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus-directing to Respondents to protect the right to Life, Liberty, dignity, freedom of conscience & free profession, practice and propagation of Religion Guaranteed under the Fundamental Rights part 3rd of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. 2. Issue a writ, Mandamus restraining the Respondents not to make such scandalous provocative statements against the Heart & Soul of constitution adversely affecting National harmony & social structure putting the national security & sovereignty in grave danger and Respondents be directed to frame the Rules and Guide lines for the Constitutional Authorities/person, regarding public under Sovereign, Democratic principle. 3. Issue a writ, order, or direction, to produce the incriminating material evidence and reports on Hindu Terrorism, before Court, rather to publishing scandalous statements damaging social fabric of country. 4. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the Respondents to setup an independent judicial enquiry to find out the truth of statement and terrorist activities carried on by anyone in the interest of justice & the nation at large. 5. Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and award the cost of the PIL."
(3.) The law is well settled that Public Interest Litigation should be cooperative in nature and not adversarial. So far as innocuous prayer no.1 is concerned, the relief is too general in nature and this Court has no hesitation in reiterating that the State is always under constitutional obligation to protect valuable rights such as right to life, liberty and dignity etc. So far as prayer no.2 to restrain some of the respondents from making scandalous provocative statements is concerned, this Court would not like to go into such issues in Public Interest Litigation as that exercise would turn this writ petition into adversarial litigation. Hence, we are not persuaded to examine the grievance of the petitioners that certain scandalous provocative statements have been made by the respondents, in exercise of writ jurisdiction invoked by preferring a Public Interest Litigation.;