Delhi High Court Criticizes NGO for Repeated Frivolous PILs Targeting Religious Sites
The Delhi High Court issued a stern warning on Wednesday, cautioning against heightening religious passions while sharply criticizing an NGO for repeatedly filing what it termed frivolous public interest litigations aimed at alleged encroachments by mosques and dargahs in the national capital.
Judicial Process Misuse Flagged by Bench
A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia expressed strong disapproval of what it described as the "sheer misuse of judicial process" through multiple petitions. The court specifically addressed two petitions—one filed against the NGO Save India Foundation and another filed by the organization itself—highlighting a concerning pattern of litigation.
The bench also raised concerns about a growing tendency where petitioners first file PILs and then immediately comment about them on social media platforms. "You are already before a court. Whatever you have to say, convey your arguments to the court. We will only request, rather appeal, not to heighten the passions," the bench orally observed during the proceedings.
Court Allows Individual to Raise Demolition Concerns
While addressing the NGO's petitions, the court permitted one Mohd Kamran to raise issues relating to recent demolitions around a mosque in the Turkman Gate area before the single judge hearing the matter. Kamran, represented by senior advocate Jatan Singh, sought a stay on any further action against the Faiz Elahi mosque, highlighting potential impacts on an adjacent graveyard.
Kamran's counsel also urged the court to impose heavy costs on the NGO for allegedly misusing PILs to target a particular religion. However, the court declined to pass any immediate order, instead allowing Kamran to approach the single judge dealing with the demolition case. The bench clarified that any encroachment on public land must be removed and declined to grant any stay order.
Strong Warning Issued to NGO Counsel
The court delivered a pointed warning to the NGO's legal representative during the hearing. "Don't test our patience. We were very tolerant with you," the bench cautioned when the lawyer claimed that public land was being encroached upon as Waqf properties. This statement underscored the court's growing frustration with what it perceived as repetitive and potentially inflammatory litigation.
Questioning the Bona Fides of the Organization
Earlier in the proceedings, the court had questioned the bona fides of the NGO while hearing a separate PIL alleging illegal construction of a mosque on government green land in Bahapur village. The bench observed that the petitioner appeared to be misusing the PIL jurisdiction by repeatedly raising similar issues targeting religious structures.
The court noted that society faces numerous serious problems requiring judicial attention, but the petitioner seemed to selectively highlight only issues involving religious properties. This selective focus prompted the bench to question whether these petitions were genuinely filed in public interest or served other agendas.
Broader Implications for PIL Jurisprudence
This case highlights important questions about the appropriate use of public interest litigation in India's judicial system. PILs were originally conceived as a mechanism to address genuine public concerns and provide access to justice for marginalized groups, but courts have increasingly expressed concern about their misuse for narrow agendas.
The Delhi High Court's strong stance in this matter sends a clear message about maintaining the sanctity of judicial processes and preventing litigation that could potentially inflame religious sentiments. The bench's emphasis on avoiding heightened passions reflects judicial awareness of the sensitive nature of religious property disputes in a diverse society.
Legal experts suggest this ruling may establish important precedents for how courts handle repetitive PILs targeting specific religious communities, potentially leading to stricter scrutiny of petitioners' motives and more frequent imposition of costs for frivolous litigation.
