ORDER
B.A. Khan, J.
1. Petitioner, a chronic Public Interest Litigant, has filed this PIL, to assail grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators in M.P. State and has also challenged the vires of M.P. Vidhan Sabha Sadasya Vetan Tatha Bhatta Tatha Pension Adhiniyam on the ground that it suffered from legislative incompetence, as any such grant of pension was not authorised by provisions of Article 195 of the Constitution which only provided for payment of salaries and allowances to the Legislators and not Pension.
2. The point in issue stands already settled by a Division Bench of this Court rendered at Main Seat Jabalpur in Raghu Thakur v. State, (AIR 1997 MP 223) holding enactment as intra-vires and validating the grant and payment of pension to Ex-legislators on the strength of Entry 42 in the State List of 7th Schedule of the Constitution read with Article 246.
3. We have gone through the judgment (supra) and we find ourselves in total agreement with the reasoning adopted therein and hold that the impugned legislation was valid and intra-vires the provisions of the Constitution and that grant and payment of pension to Ex-Legislators in the State did not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity.
4. At this stage Shri D.D. Vyas pointed out that petitioner stood already admonished by the Supreme Court for his dabbling in constitutional matters, in his own case (AIR 1997 SC 272). He prayed that he should be restrained from filing frivolous petitions only to gain publicity resulting in waste of time of Court.
5. We have gone through the Supreme Court Judgment wherein it was observed, related to petitioner, thus :
“We cannot help mentioning that on issues of constitutional laws, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which if we may say so, are often drafted in a casual and cavalier fashion. This is the impression that one gets on reading the present petition. It is of utmost importance that those who invoke this Court’s jurisdiction seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not plunging in areas Wherein they are not well-versed. Such a litigant must not succumb to spasmodic sentiments and behave like a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of issues providing publicity. He must remember that as a person seeking to espouse a public cause, he owes it to the public as well as to the Court that he does not rush to Court without undertaking a research, even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. Besides, it must be remembered that a good cause can be lost if petitions are filed on half-baked information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified and competent to raise such issues as the rejection of such a petition may affect third party rights. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no one has a right to the waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not moved by other extraneous considerations. So also the Court must be careful to ensure that the process of the Court is not sought to be abused by a person who desires to persist with his point of view, almost carrying it to the point of obstinacy, by filing a series of petitions refusing to Accept the Court’s earlier decisions as concluding the point.”
It seems that petitioner had taken the observations of the highest Court of the land casually. He was still persisting in his effort to file series of petitions on Constitutional and other issues which either stood settled or turned out to be damp squib only to hog publicity and to derive a satisfaction of sorts. His petitions, as noticed by the Supreme Court, invariably made no head and tail and were mostly in the nature of charter of demands or propounding his own wishful philosophy and thinking. He had also filed petitions highlighting private causes and interests like alleged unsatisfactory living accommodation of policemen and meagre remuneration paid to Chowkidars and so on when they had not ventilated any such grievance and when they were capable of approaching the Court on their own, if they so wanted. All this coupled with the nature of “PIL” cases brought before the Court showed that “PIL” medium was being indiscriminately used contrary to the purpose for which it was evolved. The purpose was not to promote individual interest or to generate publicity but to redress public injury, enforce public duty, vindicate rule of law and to provide access to the Court to the weaker and disadvantaged sections of society who were otherwise unable to reach the Court. It is unfortunate that the real purpose should have gone under eclipse and an otherwise potent and innovative medium, become free for all. Today any Tom, Dick and Harry feels free to engage the Court in the name of “PIL”. There is a free flow of cases which are prepared casually and cursorily from media reports and contain bald allegations and assertions unsupported by any material or basis whatsoever. Neither the status and standing of petitioners nor any public interest is disclosed. All this leads to an avoidable time consuming exercise which ultimately turns out to be futile. It is high time that this trend was checked and ended to save the valuable Court time and also to eliminate the frivolousness of such litigation, lest it would sound a death-knell of an otherwise potent and valuable medium for public grievance redressal.
6. It becomes necessary to regulate filing of such public interest litigation before the Court by providing as under :
(1) A “PIL” shall disclose petitioner’s social public standing/professional status and his public spirited antecedents and specify the nature of cause and interest involved. It shall be supported by an affidavit on each averment/allegation and contain a statement/declaration that issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier;
(2) It shall be accompanied by a security deposit of Rs. 2000/- and unless dispensed with on the recommendation of Registrar, shall not be processed for listing before the Court;
(3) It shall be scrutinised by the Registrar to ascertain the status/standing of petitioner and the nature of cause disclosed in it and in case it was found wanting in either respect and was not supported by some prima facie proof wherever warranted, Registrar shall return the petition for making up the deficiency to his satisfaction;
(4) If petitioner was aggrieved by the order of Registrar, he/she could take appeal to the Court on deposit of Rs. 500/-; and
(5) Media, both print and electronic are required to desist from publishing the subject matter of any “PIL” unless its cognizance was taken by the Court by issuing notice to respondents.
7. This petition is dismissed with the directions given hereinabove. Registrar to take necessary steps for publication of these directions so as to apprise the Bar and General Public.
