It is not the duty of a constitutional court to regulate and monitor the movement of every citizen to see whether one indulges in public urination, spitting and littering, the Delhi High Court said on Monday while dismissing a plea seeking to prohibit the practice of putting up images of deities on walls to prevent people from urinating in public places.
The high court, which said the concern raised by the petitioner would be better addressed by civic bodies, held the petition was nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law and a fit case to be crushed at the threshold itself.
The present case is not a fit case for this court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and the prayers sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this court.
It is certainly not the duty of a constitutional court to regulate and monitor the movement of each citizen to see whether one indulges in public urination, spitting and littering. The concern raised by the petitioner would be better addressed by civic bodies and not by this court, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said in its 10-page judgement.
The judgement came while deciding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to prohibit the practice of putting up images of deities on walls to prevent people from urinating, spitting or littering in public places.
Petitioner advocate Gorang Gupta said in his plea the common practice of affixing images of deities on walls to prevent urination, spitting and throwing garbage in public places had created a serious menace in society as these pictures did not guarantee prevention of such acts.
Instead, people publicly urinate or spit on the "sacred images", the petition said.
"This seriously denigrates and disparages the sanctity of the sacred images... Fear is used as an element to stop people from urinating or spitting and littering. These things cannot be permitted over the element of pure devotion borne out of faith and freedom to practise and profess one's religion," it said.
While referring to an earlier order of the high court on the issue of public urination, the bench said the previous decision had in clear terms stated the solution to the menace of public urination lay elsewhere and not before the court.
This court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot pass the directions which are being sought for in the present PIL. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, who is a practising lawyer, has approached this court and filed a PIL, being aware of the aforesaid order wherein a similar plea was raised.
"The present PIL is nothing but a sheer abuse of the doctrine of PIL developed by the judiciary as a tool to espouse the cause of the oppressed and marginalised sections of the society, the bench said.
It said the petitioner being aware of the March 2014 order chose to file a fresh PIL, espousing it as a fresh cause, and it is certainly a frivolous PIL which has resulted in wasting valuable judicial time.
The bench said it was a fit case to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, it said, being cognizant of the fact the petitioner-in-person is a young practising advocate, it was refraining from imposing any costs.
It hoped the petitioner will exercise necessary diligence and restraint before filing such frivolous PILs in the future.
The high court noted there has been an increase in the abuse of the doctrine of PIL and multiple frivolous PILs are being filed by citizens in order to gain publicity, fame and popularity.
It said frivolous PILs encroach upon valuable judicial time which could be utilised in addressing genuine issues.
Not only are such PILs to the detriment of the public at large, they are also a threat to the credibility of the judicial system and undermine the faith reposed in the judiciary by the citizens of India.
"Courts, while being considerate in fostering the doctrine of PIL, must be wary of PILs being filed for the sake of publicity or to promote personal, political or a business agenda and such frivolous PILs must be extinguished at the threshold itself, it said.
The plea said affixation of sacred images of deities on walls to prevent urination in public and spitting and throwing junk violated sections 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code as it hurt the religious sentiments of the general public.
The plea said the high court, in an earlier case, had acknowledged the menace of open public urination and, in its order, noted that religious sentiments of people were getting hurt due to the practice of affixing photographs of deities on walls.
