Judicial Accountability PIL Dismissed: Supreme Court Imposes Heavy Costs for Frivolous Litigation

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a strong rebuke to the misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in a case filed by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR). The case revolved around allegations of corruption in the judiciary and an attempt to seek a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into purported bribery concerning a pending case before the Supreme Court. The bench, led by Justices R.K. Agrawal, Arun Mishra, and A.M. Khanwilkar, dismissed the PIL, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 25 lakhs, emphasizing that the petition was a blatant abuse of the legal process.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding an alleged conspiracy to influence a case pending before the Supreme Court. The FIR named multiple individuals, including a retired judge of the Odisha High Court, who allegedly attempted to procure a favorable judgment through bribery.

The petitioner, CJAR, sought the following reliefs:

• Constitution of an SIT, headed by a retired Chief Justice of India, to investigate the bribery allegations.
• Direction to the CBI to transfer all evidence related to FIR No. RC10(A)/2017-AC.III, New Delhi, to the SIT.

The petitioner argued that the case was crucial for maintaining judicial independence and integrity, necessitating an impartial probe by an SIT.

Legal Proceedings

Arguments by the Petitioner

• Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CJAR, contended that there existed a high-level conspiracy involving the judiciary and that only an independent SIT could unearth the truth.
• The PIL was not intended to target any specific judge but aimed to safeguard judicial independence.
• Given the sensitivity of the issue, an impartial probe was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The Attorney General of India, appearing for the Union of India, argued that the petition was an abuse of court process.
• A similar petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.11.2017.
• The petition was a deliberate attempt to re-litigate an issue already settled by the court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench made several critical observations while dismissing the petition.

On the Frivolous Nature of the Petition:

“The petition is not only wholly frivolous but contemptuous, unwarranted, and aims at scandalizing the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis.”

On the Allegations of Judicial Corruption:

“There is no question of registering any FIR against any sitting judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court without consultation with the Chief Justice of India.”

On Repetitive Filings:

“The entire judicial system has been unnecessarily brought into disrepute for no good cause whatsoever.”

Reference to the Kamini Jaiswal Case

The Supreme Court noted that an identical petition had been filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal, which was dismissed on 14.11.2017. The bench cited its earlier ruling, emphasizing that the FIR related to the case did not name any sitting judge, and no investigation could be launched against a judge without the prior approval of the Chief Justice of India.

The court reiterated that allowing such allegations to be entertained without substantive proof would erode public trust in the judiciary.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, categorically stating that:

• The petition was a deliberate attempt to malign the judiciary.
• No substantial evidence was presented to warrant an independent SIT investigation.
• The issue had already been adjudicated, and filing successive petitions on the same subject was an abuse of judicial process.
• An exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund within six weeks.

Key Takeaways

• Repeated filing of PILs on the same issue is a misuse of judicial resources.
• Allegations against the judiciary require credible evidence before being entertained.
• The court reaffirmed that investigation against a sitting judge must follow due process, requiring approval from the Chief Justice of India.
• The judgment serves as a warning against the frivolous use of PILs to target judicial officers without legitimate cause.

This ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to preserving judicial integrity while ensuring that PILs serve their true purpose—advocating for genuine public interest rather than being used as tools for baseless allegations.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Campaign for Judicia vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category