2025 (7) TMI 1329 - HC - Indian Laws

HC dismisses PIL seeking CBI probe into disproportionate assets for lack of public interest under Supreme Court precedent

The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking CBI investigation into disproportionate assets, holding it was not maintainable as a Public Interest ... Seeking investigation into the disproportionate assets beyond the known sources of income - handing over the investigation to CBI - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that in the earlier Public Interest Litigation said Shri Dhullu Mahto was party to the proceeding but in the present writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the said Shri Dhullu Mahto is not party. However, the entire allegation is against him - This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of parties, deems it fit and proper to see whether the instant petition is maintainable in the nature of Public Interest and for this purpose, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court along with the interpretation of word “Public Interest Litigation” is also required to be referred. This Court, after having gone through the aforesaid judgment, found therefrom that the “public interest” as has been defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [2003 (11) TMI 589 - SUPREME COURT] means that the matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It is further evident from the aforesaid judgment that the reference of the Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition has been made which defines “public interest” to the effect that something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, State or national Government. This Court is of the view that once this Court has expressed its view holding the nature of allegation as has been made against Shri Dhullu Mahto as not the Public Interest Litigation, hence, if that order has been referred to raise the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, then such issue cannot be said to be baseless - Moreover, the part of the order by which the observation was made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court holding the nature of allegation not to be a Public Interest Litigation has not been challenged before higher forum and, as such, the same has attained its finality. The present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. ISSUES: Whether a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge and comprising officers from Income Tax Department, Enforcement Directorate, CBI, and State Police to investigate allegations of disproportionate assets and corruption against a sitting Member of Parliament is maintainable.Whether the investigation into allegations of disproportionate assets, benami properties, and related criminal activities against the said Member of Parliament is being conducted with due diligence and proper pace by the concerned agencies.Whether the petitioner has locus standi and bona fide interest to file the PIL in the absence of impleading the accused Member of Parliament as a party respondent.Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct or monitor ongoing investigations by statutory agencies such as the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate.Whether the present petition amounts to a collateral attack or review of earlier judicial orders dismissing similar PILs on maintainability and merits. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the present PIL is not maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation since a Coordinate Bench had already held similar allegations against the same Member of Parliament in an earlier PIL to be not a Public Interest Litigation, and that order has attained finality.The Court found that the petitioner has failed to implead the accused Member of Parliament as a party respondent in the instant PIL, which is a significant factor militating against maintainability.The Court observed that ongoing investigations by the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate are continuing in accordance with statutory provisions, including reassessment proceedings under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and registration of ECIR by ED based on multiple FIRs, and thus judicial direction for monitoring or transfer of investigation is unwarranted.The Court held that entertaining the present petition would amount to reviewing or circumventing the earlier order dismissing the petitioner's prior PIL and related petitions as a wagering attempt, which is impermissible.The Court dismissed the petition while expressing expectation that the statutory investigations shall be concluded expeditiously to provide a logical end without delay. RATIONALE: The Court applied the legal framework governing Public Interest Litigation as laid down by the Supreme Court, particularly the principles from Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., emphasizing that a PIL must involve a matter of public or general interest affecting a class of the community with pecuniary or legal rights, and must be filed bona fide without oblique motives.The Court relied on the Apex Court's guidelines to discourage frivolous or vexatious PILs filed for personal gain, political vendetta, or publicity, and stressed the necessity of verifying the petitioner's credentials, prima facie correctness of information, and substantial public interest before entertaining a PIL.The Court noted that in the earlier PIL involving the same allegations and parties, it was held that the matter did not constitute a Public Interest Litigation, and since that order was not challenged, it attained finality and is binding on the present petition.The Court underscored the principle that judicial interference in ongoing statutory investigations should be limited and not amount to supervision or control unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not demonstrated here.The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining social balance by preventing misuse of PILs and judicial time by busybodies or meddlesome interlopers, consistent with the doctrine that locus standi and bona fide interest are mandatory thresholds.