The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to modify its earlier order against an NGO, by which it had slapped an “exemplary cost” of Rs 25 lakh on it for filing 64 PILs without any success over the years. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices D Y Chandrachud and A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by NGO Suraz India Trust to modify the apex court’s May 1 order which also barred the organisation from filing any plea before any court across the country.
An anguished bench also asked the court security staff to escort the petitioner, Rajiv Daiya, out of the courtroom as he kept arguing even after his plea was “dismissed”.
“This kind of letter (against the SC order) cannot be circulated. You are wasting our time. Heard. Dismissed. You will have to deposit the amount (cost),” the bench said when Daiya said he has written to President and the Prime Minister in this regard.
“You have made the judges of this court as parties to your petition,” the bench said while refusing to give any relief to the NGO.
The apex court had on May 1 taken the punitive step and imposed a hefty cost on the NGO saying waste of judicial time was a matter of serious concern.
The top court had also said that such practises have to be dealt with sternly to prevent misuse of the courts by such individuals “who have nothing to do but only cast scandalous and imaginary aspersions”.
On 64 occasions when the Suraz India Trust had approached the court, it did not get any success, the court had noted.
Referring to the details of the matters filed by the NGO and the various orders passed by the apex court, the bench headed by the then Chief Justice J S Khehar had said it “leaves no doubt that Suraz India Trust has repeatedly misused the jurisdiction of this court”.
The apex court had on April 24 rapped the NGO and its chief for wasting judicial time.
It had on March 27 issued notice to the NGO for filing 64 petitions over the years under the garb of public interest litigation and Daiya to show cause why he should be allowed to continue filing cases.
The top court had handed over to him a compilation of the 64 pleas filed by him in the nature of writ petitions, review petitions to asked him to respond to the notice.