Public interest litigation cannot rest on blog assertions; unverified online commentary is not evidence for CBI investigation.

A writ petition framed as public interest litigation, seeking registration of an FIR and CBI investigation on the basis of blog statements, requires a showing of substantial public interest, public harm, or public injury; absent a live public wrong, the extraordinary remedy is not warranted. The Delhi HC held that the dispute had already been settled, the concerned judge had superannuated and died, and no basis remained for CBI intervention. It further stated that blog content is only opinion and commentary, not evidence, and cannot by itself prove alleged facts. On that footing, the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation, founded on statements contained in a blog, disclosed sufficient public interest to warrant a direction for registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI; (ii) whether statements in a blog could be treated as evidence to support such a request.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation, founded on statements contained in a blog, disclosed sufficient public interest to warrant a direction for registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI.

Analysis: Public interest litigation is maintainable only where substantial public interest, public harm, or public injury is shown. The controversy relating to the subject matter had already been settled earlier, and the concerned judge had since superannuated and died. In that background, no live public wrong requiring CBI investigation was made out.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner. No sufficient public interest existed to direct CBI registration or investigation.

Issue (ii): whether statements in a blog could be treated as evidence to support such a request.

Analysis: A blog is a personal online journal reflecting opinion and commentary. Statements made in a blog are not evidence by themselves and cannot substitute proof. The same principle that applies to newspaper reports as hearsay applies with equal force to blog entries.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner. Blog contents could not be relied upon as proof of the alleged facts.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not disclose a live public interest warranting the extraordinary remedy sought, and it was therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A PIL seeking criminal action must disclose substantial public interest and cannot rest on unverified blog assertions, because blog content is merely opinion and not evidence.

---