The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a PIL challenging the transparency and legal status of the PM CARES Fund, strongly criticising the petitioner who appeared in person and questioning the authenticity of his claims.
The petitioner, a hosiery trader from Ludhiana, had approached the Court under Article 32, seeking a declaration that the PM CARES Fund be treated as “State” under Article 12 and made subject to transparency obligations under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant extensively questioned him about his background, educational qualifications, and how the petition had been drafted. He told the Court he was a hosiery trader dealing in jackets, jerseys and T-shirts and that he had studied up to Class XII from Sanatan Dharam Public School, Ludhiana.
When asked whether he had filed any PIL earlier, he admitted this was his first petition and that he had directly approached the Supreme Court. The Court also questioned him about the drafting of the petition and whether any lawyer had assisted him. When he insisted he had drafted the petition himself after searching material online, the Chief Justice expressed strong doubt. “You have not drafted this yourself. I am warning you.”
The Bench noted that the language, legal terminology and constitutional arguments in the petition could not possibly be the work of the petitioner. The Court remarked:
“The tone and tenor, the expressions, the language, the legal terminology and the so-called constitutional principles cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner.”
The Bench further observed that the petitioner appeared to have “lent his shoulders to some vicious element” who had filed the petition to make “vague, wild, frivolous, malicious and scandalous allegations.” The Court, however, said it was not inclined to conduct a roving inquiry to identify the persons behind the petition, and instead decided to dismiss the plea.
“Suffice it would be at this stage to dismiss it with a stern warning to the petitioner not to indulge in such frivolous petitions.”
Before dismissing the case, the Court also advised the petitioner to focus on his business rather than filing such petitions. “Go back to Ludhiana and do your business. Sell sweaters there.”
The petition was dismissed with a warning, with the Court cautioning the petitioner not to file such frivolous petitions in the future.