37 PILs in 2 years: Delhi High Court rejects Save India Foundation’s challenge to 46-yr-old Jahangirpuri Waqf properties

The NGO was previously slammed by the Delhi High Court last year for filing several PIls where the Chief Justice Upadhyaya orally remarked, “You chose one structure, make a representation (before the authorities and then), come to the court… Don’t you see structures elsewhere?… One thing more…you’re an activist or what we do not know, but as an officer of the court, you owe some duty to the court system as well.”

Case observation: ‘46 years, intention of PIL’

• The court noted that apart from 37 PILs, the foundation has also filed 11 other cases.
• The petitioner has unnecessarily attempted to “rake up” the past. 
• The motive behind filing the plea also does not appear to be bona fide (good faith). 
• Any notification made about 46 years ago cannot be permitted to be challenged on “flimsy” grounds.
• There was nothing on record to establish that the land allegedly acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, corresponded to the land on which the Waqf properties enlisted in the said notification were situated.
• The petitioner claimed that the police had falsely implicated the authorised person of the trust in various fake police cases due to political considerations, but had not disclosed the details of the criminal cases. 

• The instant PIL has not been filed with bonafide motive or in the public interest. 

PIL and its purity

• The jurisprudence surrounding PILs has drastically relaxed the rule of locus to file a petition seeking protection of the rights of those who are in some disadvantaged situation for reasons of poverty, illiteracy or lack of awareness, etc. 
• The rule of locus also stands relaxed in case, by instituting an appropriate proceeding, protection of the right of the general public or a group of persons is sought.
• However, it is important to keep in mind that while entertaining such PILs, it should necessarily cater for a public cause or be filed in the public interest. 
• PIL is a tool evolved by the Supreme Court and various high courts for a laudable purpose and has served the public causes which otherwise could not be brought to the attention of the courts for many reasons. 
• The purity of the stream of public interest litigation in the country should not, at any cost, be permitted to be undermined by any litigant. 
• The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has emphasised that it is the duty of the superior courts to entertain public interest litigation petitions for protecting and achieving greater public interest. 
• The apex court, at the same time, stated that it is also the duty of the courts to ensure that frivolous petitions or petitions not filed with bona fide intentions or purpose, which are styled as public interest litigation petitions, should be “nipped in the bud”. 

Case: NGO, notification and waqk property

• Save Indian Foundation is a registered trust, which challenged the March 1980 notification issued by the Delhi Wakf Board, which was published in the official Gazette of the state in 1980. 
• In this 1980 notification, certain wakf properties existing in the then Union Territory of Delhi have been published. 
• Petitioner challenged the said list, which included the various Jama Masjid mosques. 
• It was placed on record that the notification was published by the Wakf Board after examining the report forwarded by the state administration. 

‘Recently came to knowledge’

• One of the advocates of the foundation, Umesh Chandra Sharma, argued that the organisation was not aware that the properties enlisted in the said notification were Wakf properties, which came to their knowledge only recently and therefore, the delay in espousing a case in public interest is not material. 
• Sharma also mentioned that the properties listed in the said notification are situated on land which forms part of the land acquired and was declared by the land acquisition collector, and compensation was also paid to the land owners for the acquisition.

• He further mentioned that, however, the said properties were declared to be wakf properties by the said notification in violation of law and the Supreme Court’s directions regarding “character” of acquired land. 
• He argued that once the land over which the said properties exist was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, they could not be enlisted as wakf properties.
• He stated that any construction on the said properties is nothing but illegal encroachment on public land, and therefore, the notification is liable to be quashed. 

‘Abuse of process of law’

• On the contrary, representing the Wakf board, advocate Manu Chaturvedi argued that a challenge to a notification issued in the year 1980 after a lapse of about 46 years would not be permissible and highlighted that the list of the Wakf properties was published strictly in accordance with the laws. 
• It was further submitted that the list contained in the said notification was published by the Wakf Board after an inquiry conducted by the commissioner of Wakfs and on a report based on such inquiry done by the state government. 
• It has also been argued that making a challenge to the said notification after such a long period is equivalent to an abuse of the process of the court. 
• Chaturvedi also pointed out that the relevant laws regarding this matter clearly provide the mechanism to resolve issues if any question arises whether a particular property is a wakf. 
• In such a scenario, the mechanism suggests that any person interested in such property could institute a suit in the civil court n for the decision on the question, and the decision of such court in respect of such matter would be final. 
• However, the counsel pointed out that no such claim would be entertained by the civil court after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the list of wakfs. 
• Chaturvedi has also questioned the intention of instituting these proceedings as a public interest litigation petition by the NGO and mentioned that the petitioner had even earlier instituted a PIL, which was dismissed.