Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Devendra Kumar Arora, JJ. - (1.) ALL the four writ petitions before the Court have been filed by an organization described as "People's Forum through its convener Dr. Nutan Thakur, address - 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow". The reliefs which are sought in the petitions are briefly described as follows: (i) A writ of quo -warranto directing the Additional Advocate General to immediately vacate the administrative charge of the post of Advocate General pursuant to an order of the State Government dated 6.8.2014, Writ Petition No. 7459 (M/B) of 2014. (ii) A writ of mandamus for enforcing the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014 and the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 as amended in 2014, Writ Petition No. 7723 (M/B) of 2014. (iii) A writ of mandamus directing the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice as well as the Union of India through the Principal Secretary to the President of India to immediately stop all further appointments of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts through what is described in the petition as a "so -called collegium system which has been turned down by Parliament of India", and to make further appointments only in accordance with the provisions of the National Judicial Appointments Bill, 2014 and the 121st Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2014, Writ Petition No. 7801(M/B) of 2014, and (iv) A writ of mandamus directing the Registry of this Court to entertain all Public Interest Litigation filed by the People's Forum, either through its convener or through anyone else without applying the judicial order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.4.2014 in Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2014. On 11.4.2014, a Division Bench of this Court heard Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2014 which was filed in public interest by Dr. Nutan Thakur challenging the validity of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, enacted for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India, former Prime Ministers of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith. The Division Bench held that the petition was entirely baseless and had been filed with an oblique purpose of seeking publicity. The Division Bench observed as follows: "We find that the writ petition is entirely baseless, and has been filed with an oblique purpose for seeking publicity. The petitioner does not appear to have the locus and understanding of the importance of security which is required to be provided to the Prime Minister, former Primer Ministers and their family members. After assassination of the former Prime Minister of the country, the Special Security Group Act was enacted, to protect the highest public executive functionary of the country from threats extended by terrorist organizations. The importance of this Act cannot be overstated. The Act itself provides in the proviso to Section 4(1) and Section 4(1A) of the assessment of level of threat periodically for continuing the security and the guidelines for such assessment. We thus find the challenge of the Act, as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is entirely baseless and frivolous."
(2.) THE Division Bench recorded that the Court was informed that Dr. Nutan Thakur has filed as many as 140 writ petitions styled as 'public interest cases'. Details of those writ petitions were placed on the record of the order that was passed on 11.4.2014. It would be necessary, at this stage, to extract from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, which read as follows: "5. We are informed, and are confirmed by Dr. Nutan Thakur - the petitioner appearing in person that she has filed about 140 writ petitions under the category of public interest litigation. She appears in Court almost every day, for these matters. She has become a self -styled PIL specialist, and her name regularly appears in news papers. Some of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner have been entertained by this Court. Even her husband, a serving IPS Officer of IG rank indulges in filing writ petitions in public interest numbering more than 20 upto the beginning of this month. Together the petitioner and husband have filed 160 writ petitions in purported public interest matters in last three to four years. 6. The Registry has supplied a list of 86 cases, which have been filed by the petitioner Dr. Nutan Thakur in person, in which she is the first petitioner, which is extracted as under: The Division Bench adverted to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, : (2010) 3 SCC 402, particularly to the observations of the Supreme Court to the effect that of late, the jurisdiction in public interest has been usurped for a blatant abuse of the process and for extraneous purposes. The Division Bench noted that Dr. Nutan Thakur has raised issues of public interest before the Court within a few days when any social or political issue attracts the attention of the media and almost all the writ petitions have been filed on the basis of newspaper reports. The Division Bench observed as follows: "8. In many of the files of public interest litigation filed by the petitioner, examined by the Court, we find that the petitioner has raised issues within a few days when any social or political issue attracts the attention of the media. Almost all the writ petitions are filed without any research or material and based only on the newspaper reports. The petitioner appears to have a permanent presence before the Bench hearing public interest litigation matters. It appears from the records of the writ petitions and the orders that the petitioner has received a tacit encouragement in filing such petitions, which takes away substantial time of the Court leaving other important matters. 9. Most of the writ petitions, filed by the petitioner in person are not in public interest. These writ petitions have been filed covering almost every subject covered by media to be topical mostly concerning social, political economic or commercial interest. She has also allowed her children, still minor in filing writ petitions; the last one concerning the decision of the Central Government awarding Bharat Ratna awards. Almost every subject under the sun which attracts her imagination becomes a subject matter of Public Interest Litigation. 10. In order to save this Court from the tsunami of writ petitions filed by the petitioner who appear almost every other day in Court touching matters which hits the headline, treating it as public interest, we find it appropriate to direct that henceforth the registry of the Court will not entertain any writ petition in public interest from Dr. Nutan Thakur - either in person or through Counsel (either as petitioner or co -petitioner) unless the petition, filed by her, accompanies a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/ - (Twenty Five Thousand). At the time of admission of the writ petition, if the Court considers that the petitioner has raised a matter which is genuine and bona fide and in public interest, the demand draft deposited by her may be returned to her. In case it is found by the Court that the Writ Petition filed by her does not involve any public interest and the writ petition is dismissed, the amount in the demand draft deposited by her will be treated as costs imposed on her, and the amount will be credited in the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee at Lucknow to be spent for activities of the Legal Services Committee of the High Court."
(3.) BY the order of the Division Bench, the Court has directed that the Registry shall not entertain any writ petition in public interest from Dr. Nutan Thakur - either in person or through Counsel (either as petitioner or co -petitioner) unless it is accompanied by a demand draft of Rs. 25,000/ -. The Court also clarified that at the time of admission of the petition, if the Court considers that the petitioner has raised a grievance which is genuine and bona fide and in public interest, the demand draft deposited may be returned but if it is found that the writ petition does not involve any element of public interest and is dismissed, the amount of the demand draft will be treated as costs and will be credited to the account of the Legal Services Committee of the High Court at Lucknow.;