‘Publicity interest litigation’: HC nixes PIL seeking court-monitored probe into accident that killed Cyrus Mistry

“This seems to be a publicity interest litigation. Not public interest litigation. You do not have personal knowledge of anything,” the bench remarked.

On September 4, 2022, Mistry and Jahangir Pandole as well as Anahita and her husband Darius Pandole were travelling in a car along the Charoti Bridge over Surya river towards Mumbai from Ahmedabad. While Mistry and Jahangir – who were seated in the rear seats – died in the accident, Darius and Anahita, seated in front, suffered severe injuries.

Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne passed an order in the plea filed by Sandesh Shivaji Jedhe, who alleged that the FIR was filed against Anahita by the Palghar police on November 5, 2022, after nearly two months of the accident and the charges against her, including rash driving, causing death by negligence, are insufficient.

The plea, filed through advocates Sadiq Ali and Aditya Navpute, sought directions to the central and state governments to formulate guidelines for the safety of vehicular passengers in case of dangerous and drunk driving. Direction was also sought to obtain Anahita’s call data records to find out if she was at a cafe in Mumbai on September 3, 2022, and had consumed liquor. Jedhe further sought CCTV camera footage from the restaurant.

The petitioner submitted that the concerned law enforcement machinery is adopting dual standards, “one for powerful and another for poverty stricken.” The high court had on January 10 asked the petitioner to explain his “locus standi (legal standing)” to file such a PIL.

Senior advocates Rafique Dada and Aabad Ponda, appearing for Darius and Anahita Pandole, respectively, sought dismissal of the plea with costs and said the PIL is based on the “imagination” that Anahita was inebriated and she was not tested for the same, which is not the case.

Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna S Pai, appearing for the state and the police, had said the tests were conducted. “The test results were clear, alcohol was not found,” Pai had added.

The bench, in its order, noted, “It appears that petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL. The plea stated that blood samples of Anahita Pandole were not collected. Upon being confronted he said the statement may not be in tune with actual facts on record. When a petition is filed, pleadings are on oath, they cannot be casual and wanton pleadings. Even the statements about drunk driving of the accused are not supported by any evidence on record. When a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs. The petitioner is not in the know of facts personally. He is not remotely connected to the issue. In the present scenario, a petition ought not be filed and not with such loose statements.”

The court noted that while the chargesheet was filed in the case, charges are yet to be framed against the accused in the trial court. “We do not see any public interest involved in the PIL. We find the present PIL to be without substance or merits or without cause. We dismiss the same with costs,” it held.