Kishore Samrite vs State of UP 2012 a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India which acknowledged the misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the importance of maintaining judicial integrity. The case revolves around false allegations, abuse of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and the need for locus standi and natural justice in PIL proceedings. It serves as a precedent in curbing frivolous petitions and ensuring legal accountability in public interest litigation. Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Kishore Samrite vs State of UP 2012 Historical Context and Facts

The case Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others centres around the misuse of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the principles governing the filing of Public Interest Litigations (PILs). It highlights the importance of preventing abuse of court processes especially when petitions are filed on behalf of others without proper verification. The Supreme Court laid down important safeguards to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and discourage frivolous or motivated litigation. The following are the brief facts of Kishore Samrite vs State of UP :

Background of the Appellant

Kishore Samrite, the appellant, is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly from Madhya Pradesh. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court acting as the next friend of three individuals namely, Sukanya Devi, Balram Singh and Sumitra Devi.

Allegations in the Writ Petition

The Appellant Kishore Samrite claimed that the three individuals were illegally detained by Respondent No. 6, rendering them incapable of filing a writ petition themselves. He relied on media reports which claimed that on 3rd December 2006, Respondent No. 6, along with six others, had allegedly raped Sukanya Devi, who is the daughter of Balram Singh.

Disappearance of the Alleged Victims

It was particularly claimed by the Appellant that these three individuals had not been seen in public since 4th January 2007, when they were last spotted in Amethi. On this basis, the Appellant invoked the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and sought a writ of habeas corpus for their release.

Earlier Petition on Same Facts

Before the petition of Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, a similar writ had already been filed by Ram Prakash Shukla, a practicing advocate in Lucknow, based on the same facts. That petition was dismissed by the High Court with a detailed and reasoned judgment.

Proceedings Before the High Court

The present writ petition was transferred to the Division Bench of the High Court without providing the Appellant an opportunity to be heard. Upon hearing the matter, the Division Bench ordered the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a case against Kishore Samrite and other individuals and accused them of framing Respondent No. 6.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the Appellant approached the Supreme Court and contended that the High Court had passed the order without granting him a chance to present his side, thereby infringing the principles of natural justice.

Download Kishore Samrite vs State of UP Free PDF

The following issues were addressed in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP -

1. Violation of Natural Justice:
   The main issue in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. was whether the principles of natural justice were infringed by the High Court when the Appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard before passing the order.
2. Abuse of Court Process:
   The Court examined whether the actions taken in filing the writ petition (Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) and the subsequent directions of the High Court amounted to an abuse of the judicial process.
3. Locus Standi:
   Lastly, the Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP analysed whether the Appellant had the locus standi to file the writ petition as a next friend on behalf of the individuals involved.

Kishore Samrite vs State of UP 2012 Legal Provisions involved

In Kishore Samrite vs State of UP 2012, Article 21 and Article 226 of Indian Constitution, played an important role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 under Part III of Indian Constitution states no person can be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. In Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, The Appellant invoked Article 21 to seek the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the alleged detainees and claimed violations of their personal liberty and life.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Power of High Courts to Issue Writs

Article 226 of Indian Constitution grants High Courts the authority to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for other purposes. It simply means that individuals can approach High Courts not only for violations of fundamental rights but also for other legal rights recognized by law. In Kishore Samrite vs State of UP the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was invoked for filing the writ petition seeking a remedy for the illegal detention of the individuals.

The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP addressed various important issues that arose from the case, focusing on the adherence to legal principles, misuse of judicial processes and requirement for locus standi. The following sections outline the observation of the Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others -

Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard

The Supreme Court highlighted that the right to a fair hearing, which is a cornerstone of natural justice, is essential for maintaining the rule of law. It highlighted that legal proceedings must comply with established procedures. The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP referred to previous decisions and reaffirmed that matters such as the formation of Benches fall under the exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court. The Court noted that transferring the writ petition lacked administrative propriety and that the Appellant was not provided with an adequate opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Misuse of Judicial Process

The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others underscored that the main role of a judge is to discern the truth based on the evidence presented by the parties. It reiterated that litigants must come to court with full honesty and disclose all facts. The Court observed that the judicial system must not be used to file frivolous petitions. In Kishore Samrite vs State of UP case, the Appellant was found to have deliberately misrepresented facts, thereby misusing the judicial process.

Legal Standing and Eligibility to File

The Supreme Court explained that locus standi or the legal right to bring a case, is both a factual and legal question. It observed that the writ petition was built on false allegations and the Appellant, being a stranger to the alleged victims did not have the locus standi to file the petition. The Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP held that individuals acting as next friends must have a genuine personal or legal interest in the matter. As the Appellant had no direct or indirect connection to the case, his claim of standing was dismissed.

Kishore Samrite vs State of UP Final Decision

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs State of UP held that the writ petition was motivated by malice and political vendetta and the Appellant had misused the judicial system for personal conflicts. The petition, disguised as a public interest litigation, was found to be an abuse of legal processes. The Court highlighted that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims against Respondent No. 6 and reiterated the importance of approaching the court with integrity. The practice of using legal proceedings for political purposes was strongly condemned.

Kishore Samrite vs State of UP and Supreme Court Directives

The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others issued several important directives following its findings. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining integrity within the judicial system and reinforced the need for accountability when it comes to the use of legal proceedings. The directives are as follows:

• The writ petition was dismissed.
• The Appellant was found guilty of misusing the judicial process and had no valid claim to locus standi.
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed its duty to uncover the truth and emphasized the need for honesty and fairness in judicial matters.

Conclusion

In Kishore Samrite vs State of UP 2012 the Supreme Court on 18th October, 2012, marked an important stance against the misuse of writ jurisdiction and abuse of Public Interest Litigation. The Court dismissed the petition and highlighted the absence of bona fide intent and reinforced the principles of natural justice, requirement of locus standi and the duty of litigants to approach courts with clean hands. The case serves as an important precedent to deter politically motivated or malicious litigation disguised as public interest.