Supreme Court dismissed PIL filed by M L Sharma in Padmavati, caution him, but not imposed cost

1 December, 2017

The Supreme Court of India dismissed Writ Petition PIL filed by Manohar Lal Sharma under Article 32 of the Constitution of India with prayers that a film title "Padmavati" should not be exhibited in other countries without obtaining the requisite certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under Cinemography Act, 1952 and rules and guidelines framed there under and further to issue writ of mandamus to CBI to register FIR against Mr. Sanjay Bhasali and his team members under various sections of IPC and to investigate and prosecute them in accordance with law.

A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.V. Chandrachud, while dismissing the petition, said that ordinarily the court would have imposed cost. As the petitioner in person is practicing counsel in the court, cost is not imposed, but cautioned the petitioner to be careful in future

The court observed that "It needs to be stated at the outset that the reliefs sought are not only extremely ambitious but also the nature of pleadings in the petition have the effect of potentiality that can erode the fundamental conception of pleadings in a Court of Law. It needs to be stated that neither laxity nor lack of sobriety in pleadings is countenanced in law. The assertions in a petition cannot show carelessness throwing all sense of propriety to the winds. Rambling of irrelevant facts only indicates uncontrolled and imprecise thinking and exposes the inability of the counsel".

Earlier in another petition filed by the same petitioner, forming the subject matter of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 186/2017 wherein the Court had directed that such pleadings are unwarranted. Resultantly, in that case, a substantial portion of the pleadings was struck off. Despite this, the same have been reiterated in the present petition. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-person, would submit that they are not a part of the pleadings.

The court said that "we are absolutely shocked by such an approach and submission".

Keeping view the nature of pleadings the court struck off the narrations made in pages B to E and directed that such pleadings shall not be included anywhere in future, and shall not be mentioned anywhere else.

The court also observed that "On the last occasion, while dealing with the writ petition filed by the petitioner, we had clearly stated that when the grant of certificate is pending before the CBFC, any kind of comment or adjudication by this Court would be pre-judging the matter."

In the judgment court said that "There is no basis for this Court to direct registration of an FIR and we have no hesitation in stating that the prayer is absolutely misconceived".

In the Judgment the court said that "This is a most unfortunate situation showing how public interest litigation can be abused. The hunger for publicity or some other hidden motive should not propel one to file such petitions. They sully the temple of justice and intend to create dents in justice dispensation system. That apart, a petition is not to be filed to abuse others. The pleadings, as we have stated earlier, are absolutely scurrilous, vexatious and untenable in law, and we, accordingly, strike them off the record."

Read the Order of Supreme Court dated 28.11.2017 in Padmavati PIL