During the hearing today, Chief Justice Anjaria criticised the petitioner for failing to properly disclosed his credentials or his profession.
“We don’t know about your client. Who has drafted the petition? Why you are misusing platform of the High Court by filing such petitions? What do you want? You alleging some hate speech against some particular communities. First you disclose what you are in life, how you are connected with these persons, what is the motive for filing these petitions,” Chief Justice Anjaria said.
The petitioner’s counsel eventually informed the Court that the petitioner was a civil contractor and a social activist.
However, the Bench was unimpressed by the omnibus nature of the allegations and indicated that the Court was inclined to dismiss the petition.
The petitioner’s counsel, in response, urged the Bench to either adjourn or pass over the matter since his senior was unavailable to argue.
The Court flatly refused the request and questioned why such a frivolous petition was filed at all.
“Why such omnibus petitions that too in Public Interest Petition. Is the High Court meant for such petitions? So what do you propose – you are inviting order or withdrawing?” Chief Justice Anjaria asked.
The Chief Justice added that if the petitioner was offended by any statement, he could still file a defamation complaint or avail another appropriate remedy.
“We are not concerned with all this; you file defamation complaint, whatever you want to file. What kind of petition is this? You can’t invoke such a matter for public interest. This is total misuse of the court process. Are you withdrawing? Last chance,” the Chief Justice warned.
The lawyer persisted and drew the attention of the Bench to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen Poonwalla v. Union of India to curb fake news, hate speech and mob lynching.
The Court proceeded to record the lawyer’s submission on this aspect as well in its order before dismissing the petition summarily.
Source: Barandbench
