Bombay High Court: The present PIL was filed by petitioner, a self-styled Criminology Firm, through its founder Snehil Dhall, stating that the petition should be considered as an expert opinion in terms of Section 451 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as the founder of petitioner was a qualified criminologist/crime expert who urged to the Court for issuing directions for establishing an Anti-Organized Crime Unit within the framework of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’) and United Nations Transnational Organized Crime (‘UNTOC’).
The Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya*, C.J., and Amit Borkar, J., opined that the subjects in relation to which the prayers were made pertained to the policy of the State, both administrative and legislative, which was the sole preserve of the State and even otherwise, the prayers made were product of petitioner’s figment of imagination and what it thinks proper, which did not have any legal basis. Thus, the Court dismissed the PIL and imposed Rs 10,000 as cost on petitioner.
Background
Petitioner in the PIL prayed (a) to issue a direction to respondents for constituting Anti-Organized Crime Unit to cancel/revoke all leases and allotment of properties within the Aarey Milk Colony; (b) to issue a direction to shut UNICEF Aided Dairy Teaching Institute replacing it with Anti-Organized Crime Unit or Office of UNTOC to tackle these crimes in accordance with the requirements of 20th century; (c) a direction be issued to UNICEF and New Zealand to provide reports for use of 100% buffalo dried milk imported from New Zealand; (d) to issue a direction for establishing 4000 acres Cow Farms in Arey Colony and other locations in the State of Maharashtra; (e) to constitute ‘Bombay Cave Temple Commission’ under the Military for administering cave temples and colonies and for initiating ‘Cave Temple Commission’; and (f) to constitute ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ for various purposes.
Petitioner demanded from the Court to issue direction to pay petitioner, the cost of the petition and the payment of expenses incurred by it for research and development for procurement of alleged ancient historical books from foreign libraries which were destroyed in the Asiatic Society.
It was also prayed that (a) a Special Investigating Team (‘SIT’) be constituted to address the ongoing crimes as the relevant information was not available with petitioner and to lodge FIR against those found erring; (b) to issue a direction restraining and revoking all powers of security department of Arey Colony/Factory and to handover the security of the region to the Central Reserve Police Force; (c) to allow all religious celebrations including Ganesh Utsav Pandal and Idol immersion in Arey Colony and its lakes; (d) to issue a direction to the State of Maharashtra to allot a dedicated budget for regular Pujas, Aarti, and other Hindu Rituals for all temples in which the State should also pay salaries of Pandits (Priests) and other staff required for the Temples; and (e) to issue a direction to initiate a ‘Psychological Warfare Unit’ to address organized crime stemming from the manipulation of terminologies based on criminal psychological profiles.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the prayers made were not only omnibus in nature but also were multiple in number, covering diverse Subjects and even the nature of the prayers suggested that petitioner aspired for imposition of its own ideas or results of its own alleged study, on the State through the process of the Court. The Court stated that in the present case not only had multiple causes of action been asserted but that the petition clearly suffered from the legal vice of misjoinder of causes of action.
The Court opined that the subjects in relation to which the prayers were made pertained to the policy of the State, both administrative and legislative, which was the sole preserve of the State and even otherwise, the prayers made were product of petitioner’s figment of imagination and what it thinks proper, which did not have any legal basis.
The Court stated that the superior Courts, in our constitutional framework, were the protectors of the fundamental rights and other legal rights, constitutional, statutory, or otherwise. A writ of mandamus was issued by the superior Courts where infringement of any legal right was established and no mandamus could be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it was not supported by any legal premise.
The Court opined that the prayers made against UNICEF and New Zealand, could not be entertained in exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The other prayers relating to establishment of ‘Anti-Organized Crime Unit’ or SIT or for establishing ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ or ‘Maharashtra Cave Temple Commission’ was an outcome of fancies of petitioner as no factual or legal basis, was given for it.
The Court, after devoting considerable time to hear the present case, opined that it was extremely difficult to comprehend and understand the purpose of instituting these proceedings as a PIL. The Court stated that the petition was nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court which not only deserved to be dismissed but to issue stern warning and even impose exemplary cost on petitioner for having filed frivolous petition resulting in wastage of precious judicial time.
The Court thus dismissed the PIL and imposed Rs 10,000 as cost on petitioner.
[Crimeophobia v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2682, decided on 19-08-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Snehil Dhall, petitioner in-person
For the Respondents: Abhahy L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. Corresponding Section of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
