19 August 2024 Public Interest Litigation >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

In a recent judicial review, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Snehil Dhall, purportedly on behalf of a Criminology Firm, was dismissed by the court. The petition was critiqued for being an abuse of judicial process and a misuse of the court’s time, given its numerous and diverse demands, many of which lacked factual or legal grounding.

Background of the PIL:

Mr. Snehil Dhall, identified as a criminologist and founder of the petitioner firm, had filed the PIL under the pretext of providing expert opinion in accordance with Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The PIL sought to address a variety of issues ranging from the establishment of an "Anti-Organized Crime Unit" within the framework of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the United Nations Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) protocols, to the revocation of property leases within the Aarey Milk Colony. Additionally, the petition demanded the closure of certain institutions, the establishment of vast cow farms, and the creation of multiple commissions and units for various purposes.

Scope and Nature of the Petitions:

The PIL contained 11 main prayers and 13 interim prayers. Key demands included:

• The creation of an "Anti-Organized Crime Unit" to address organized crime.
• Revocation of property allotments in Aarey Milk Colony and replacement of specific institutions with new units or offices.
• Establishment of a 4000-acre cow farm and an array of commissions for managing cultural and historical sites.
• Financial and logistical support for research into historical books and various other administrative changes.

The petition also requested the formation of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) for ongoing crimes and the imposition of strict security measures, including transferring security responsibilities to the Central Reserve Police Force.

Court’s Ruling:

Upon review, the court found the PIL to be overly broad, lacking specific factual or legal basis, and encompassing a wide range of unrelated issues. The court noted that the petitioner's demands appeared to be based on personal beliefs rather than established legal principles or documented evidence. Furthermore, the inclusion of international entities like UNICEF and the Consulate General of New Zealand among the respondents was deemed inappropriate and unfounded.

The court observed that the petition was not only a misuse of the judicial system but also a distraction from genuine cases requiring judicial attention. The court expressed frustration over the frivolous nature of the petition and emphasized that judicial resources should be reserved for matters of substantive legal and public interest.

Costs and Warning:

In addition to dismissing the petition, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. This amount is to be deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court within six weeks, and will be allocated to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. The court warned Mr. Dhall against filing future PILs without a thorough understanding of the legal framework and relevance of his claims.

The court’s decision serves as a stern reminder of the importance of filing well-grounded and relevant petitions, and the potential consequences of abusing the PIL process. The petitioner was cautioned to respect the judicial process and to refrain from making baseless claims that could waste valuable judicial time and resources.

  Indian Evidence Act, 1872    Section 37, Protection of Human Rights Act - 1993