Court dismisses PIL as abuse of process for personal gain, orders costs.

The court found that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO was an abuse of the court process, aimed at personal gain through beneficial legislation. The petitioner's actions were deemed improper, seeking to investigate and file an FIR against government officials and contractors for alleged corruption related to the Commonwealth Games. The misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the petitioner to obtain personal and invasive details was condemned as reflecting extreme vengeance. Emphasizing the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court dismissed the petition, citing misuse of PIL and ordered costs to be paid to a charitable organization.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
2. Right to Information (RTI) Act misuse
3. Right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution
4. Concept and misuse of Public Interest Litigation

Summary:

1. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The court observed that the present litigation styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' by a non-Governmental organization (NGO) is an abuse of the process of the court. The conduct of the representative of the NGO was found to be improper and aimed at gaining advantage through beneficial legislation and judge-made law. The court noted that the petitioner, Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, represented by its General Secretary, sought to initiate a thorough investigation and register an FIR against certain government officials and contractors for alleged corruption related to the Commonwealth Games.

2. Right to Information (RTI) Act misuse:
The court highlighted that the petitioner had sought information u/s 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which included highly personal and invasive details about a government official, Mr. Deepak Hastir. The court found that the information sought was in the realm of vengeance and vindictive attitude, reflecting extreme vengeance and proclivity in bad taste. The court emphasized that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability but not to invade personal privacy without any public interest justification.

3. Right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The court reiterated that the right to privacy is a sacrosanct facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. It referred to previous judgments, including Gobind v. State of MP, R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., and District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank, to emphasize that personal information unrelated to any public activity or interest should not be disclosed. The court found that the information sought by the petitioner had no nexus with any public activity or interest and was a direct invasion of the individual's private life.

4. Concept and misuse of Public Interest Litigation:
The court discussed the concept of public interest litigation, citing various judgments, including Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, The Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary, Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, and N.K. Prasada v. Government of India. The court emphasized that PIL should not be used to satisfy personal grudges, enmity, or for publicity-seeking. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrongs or injuries and not for personal vendetta. The court concluded that the present petition was an abuse of the process of law and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 75,000 to be deposited with the Blind Relief Association, New Delhi, within four weeks.

---