Bombay HC dismisses PIL filed by ‘Crimeophobia’ firm seeking to set up Transnational Sanatan Commission; imposes Rs 10,000 costs

Bombay High Court: The current PIL was filed by the applicant, a self-styled criminology firm, through its founder Snehil Dhall, stating that the application should be considered an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 45¹ of the Evidence Act, 1872, since the founding petitioner was a qualified criminologist/crime expert who requested the court to issue directions for the establishment of an Anti-Organized Crime Unit within the purview of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’) and the United Nations Transnational Organized Crime Act (‘UNTOC’).

The Departmental Bank of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya*CJ, and Amit Borkar, J., held that the subjects in connection with which the prayers were made pertained to the policy of the State, both administrative and legislative, which was the exclusive domain of the State and even otherwise the prayers were the product of the imagination of the petitioner and what he considered to be right, which had no basis in law. Therefore, the court dismissed the PIL and imposed costs on the petitioner of Rs. 10,000.

Background

The applicant in the PIL sought (a) that a directive be issued to the respondents for the constitution of an Anti-Organized Crime Unit to cancel/revoke all leases and allotments of properties within the Aarey Milk Colony; (b) that a directive be issued to close down the UNICEF Aided Dairy Teaching Institute and replace it with an Anti-Organized Crime Unit of Office of UNTOC to deal with these crimes in accordance with the requirements of 20and century; (c) a directive is issued to UNICEF and New Zealand to furnish reports on the use of 100% dried buffalo milk imported from New Zealand; (d) a directive is issued for setting up 4000 acres of cow farms at Arey Colony and other locations in the State of Maharashtra; (e) a ‘Bombay Cave Temple Commission’ is constituted under the Army for the management of cave temples and colonies and for initiating a ‘Cave Temple Commission’; and (f) a ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ is constituted for various purposes.

The applicant has requested the court to order it to pay the applicant the costs of the application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant for research and development for the purpose of purchasing alleged ancient historical books from foreign libraries destroyed at the Asiatic Society.

It was also sought that (a) a Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) be constituted to probe the ongoing crimes, since the relevant information was not available with the petitioner, and an FIR be lodged against those found to be at fault; (b) a directive be issued to curtail and withdraw all powers of the Security Department of Arey Colony/Factory and to hand over the security of the area to the Central Reserve Police Force; (c) all religious celebrations including Ganesh Utsav Pandal and idol immersion in Arey Colony and its lakes be permitted; (d) a directive be issued to the State of Maharashtra to allocate a special budget for regular Pujas, Aarti and other Hindu rituals for all temples, the State also being required to pay the salaries of Pandits (priests) and other staff required for the temples; and (e) to issue a directive to establish a ‘Psychological Warfare Unit’ to tackle organised crime arising from the manipulation of terminologies based on criminal psychological profiles.

Analysis, law and decision

The Court held that the prayers were not only omnibus in nature but also multiple in number, covering various subjects, and even the nature of the prayers suggested that the applicant sought to impose his own ideas or the results of his own alleged study on the State through the process of the Court. The Court held that in the present case not only were multiple grounds of appeal raised, but that the application clearly suffered from the legal defect of improperly joining grounds of appeal.

The Court held that the subjects to which the requests were directed concerned the policy of the State, both administrative and legislative, which was the exclusive domain of the State. In other respects too, the requests were the product of the applicant’s imagination and of what he considered appropriate, for which there was no legal basis.

The Court held that the higher courts, in our constitutional framework, were the protectors of fundamental rights and other legal rights, constitutional, statutory or otherwise. A writ of mandamus was issued by the higher courts when infringement of any legal right was found and no writ could be issued merely to enforce a particular thought of an individual or an organisation, if it was not supported by a legal premise.

The Court held that the prayers directed against UNICEF and New Zealand could not be entertained in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The other prayers relating to the constitution of ‘Anti-Organized Crime Unit’ or SIT or for the constitution of ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ or ‘Maharashtra Cave Temple Commission’ were a figment of the imagination of the applicant as no factual or legal basis was given for them.

The court, after spending considerable time in hearing the present case, held that it was extremely difficult to appreciate and conceive the purpose of instituting these proceedings as a PIL. The court declared that the petition was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the court, which deserved not only to be dismissed but also to issue a stern warning and even impose exemplary costs on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition, resulting in wastage of valuable judicial time.

The court dismissed the PIL and awarded costs to the plaintiff of Rs 10,000.

(Crimeophobia v. Union of India, Public Interest Litigation No. 49 of 204, decided on 19-08-2024)

*Judgment written by: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

Attorneys who acted in this case:

For the applicant: Snehil Dhall, petitioner in person

For the respondents: Abhahy L. Patki, Additional Government Advocate

Buy the Constitution of India HERE