Bombay High Court dismisses PIL on crime scare, imposes fine of ₹10,000 for ‘wasting judicial time’

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by Crimeophobia, a self-styled criminology firm, through its founder, reportedly criminologist Snehil Dhall, with a charge of Rs10,000 for “wasting valuable judicial time”.

The petition contained 11 prayers along with 13 interlocutory prayers which ranged from seeking funding for Hindu rituals in cave temples of Maharashtra, formation of Transnational Sanatan Commission and a host of unrelated demands. The petition also sought formation of an “Anti-Organised Crime Unit” under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and demanded closure of a UNICEF-aided dairy educational institute in Aarey, alleging that it was built on forest land.

It was also requested to issue directions to respondents to constitute an Anti-Organized Crime Unit to cancel/revoke all leases and allotments of properties within the Aarey Milk Colony and to issue a direction to close down the UNICEF Aided Dairy Teaching Institute and replace it with an Anti-Organized Crime Unit or Office of UNTOC to tackle these crimes in line with the exigencies of the 20th century.

The court called it a “pure abuse of the legal process” and criticized the plaintiff for trying to impose personal ideas through judicial intervention.

“A writ of mandamus is issued by the higher courts when infringement of a statutory right is found. No writ can be issued merely to enforce a particular thought of an individual or an organisation, if it is not supported by any legal premise. Prayers in the PIL petition against UNICEF (United Nations) and New Zealand cannot be entertained by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” a bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar held.

The HC warned the company against misusing PILs for personal purposes and imposed a fine.

The PIL made several demands, including allocation of a special budget for Hindu rituals in cave temples, state-paid salaries for priests and setting up of Gurukuls in selected cave temples. It also sought the setting up of a “Bombay Cave Temple Commission” and a “Transnational Sanatan Commission” to oversee religious properties and manage temple affairs.

The Court noted that the prayers were not only “omnibus in nature” but also multiple in number and related to diverse subjects. It also said that the issues raised were a product of the applicant’s “fabrication” and without any legal basis.

“The other prayers regarding constitution of ‘Anti-Organised Crime Unit’ or SIT or for constitution of ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ or ‘Maharashtra Cave Temple Commission’ appear to be the outcome of imaginations of the petitioner as no factual or legal basis has been laid in the PIL petition,” the petition said.

The judges also said that it was “wordless” to hold that the respondents to the PIL were foreign agencies over whom the Supreme Court could not exercise jurisdiction “… even UNICEF, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Consulate General of New Zealand, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Office of the President of India have been impleaded as respondents. Even the allegations made in the PIL petition are full of fantasies which the petitioner claims are based on research allegedly conducted by him,” the judges said.

The Supreme Court observed that the PIL “is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law, which not only deserves to be dismissed but also calls upon us to issue a stern warning and even impose an exemplary fine on the petitioner for filing a completely frivolous petition, resulting in wastage of valuable judicial time”, and dismissed the petition with a penalty of Rs 10,000.