Bombay HC Raises Concerns Over Lack Of Disclosure In Plea Against Maharashtra CM

The Bombay High Court recently expressed its concerns regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

The court highlighted that the petitioner’s details were not disclosed, which could potentially lead to the dismissal of the petition solely based on this ground.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif Doctor, was presiding over several PILs, including one filed by social activist and lawyer Deepak Jagdev, during the proceedings.

“This is yet another petition where the details of the petitioner have not been stated. We could dismiss the petition on this ground alone,” the bench remarked.

Advocate Nitin Satpute, representing the petitioner Deepak Jagdev, clarified to the bench that his client was a law graduate at the time of filing the petition but has now become a practicing lawyer. In response, the court requested Satpute to provide the necessary details of the petitioner, including their source of livelihood and other relevant information.

“Disclose who you are properly,” the bench stated.

The PIL filed earlier this year claimed that Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s Dussehra rally attracted around 2,00,000 people from across the state. It alleged that approximately 1,700 buses from the Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) were deployed, resulting in an expenditure of over Rs 10 crore, including additional expenses related to the rally. Additionally, a separate PIL regarding a doctors’ strike also came under scrutiny by the court.

During the proceedings, the bench expressed concerns over the identity of the petitioner who filed as a “social activist.” The court requested clarification regarding the petitioner’s occupation and emphasized the importance of knowing the bonafides of the petitioner.

The bench stated that if their satisfaction was not met, they could appoint an amicus or remove the petitioner. It was remarked that the petitioner’s failure to disclose details regarding their livelihood was inadequate.

In response to the petitioner’s advocate mentioning that previous petitions filed by the petitioner had received media coverage, the bench clarified that they were not questioning the genuineness of the cause itself but rather the genuineness of the petitioner.

“We are not saying that the cause is not genuine. We are saying the petitioner is not genuine. We can take suo motu cognizance of the media reports; why do we need you?” the bench stated.

Furthermore, while addressing another petitioner in a separate PIL, Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar emphasized the need for the petitioner to demonstrate their worthiness of being treated as a PIL litigant. The bench expressed that if the petitioner were to be elevated to the status of an Amicus, their credibility and suitability would need to be assessed.