Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.
This writ petition has been filed by a practising lawyer of this Court, who also claims to be the President of 2 organizations like 'Hindu Personal Law Board' and 'Rashtra Raksha Mantra', with prayers for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents (herein) to make a provision for a State plane for exclusive use by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and helicopters for the use of Hon'ble the Chief Justices of High Courts, and also to provide the security of Premier Police Agencies like S.P.G. to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and N.S.G to Hon'ble the Chief Justices of the States. The petitioner appears to be concerned over Executive indifference in not providing adequate protocol facilities including aeroplane and helicopters to the highest judicial and legislative functionaries whereas there have been allegations of indiscriminate use of State planes by the executive functionaries. Considering the nature of duties performed by these judicial functionaries they deserve proper respect, honour and privelege. The petitioner has tried to highlight not only the lack of provision for adequate protocol facilities to Highest Judicial functionaries but also to the Heads of Legislature including the Parliament. It appears that earlier also the Secretary of a society having the objects like Law and Justice had filed a writ petition no.988 (MB) of 2008 before this Bench with similar prayers which was dismissed on 15.02.2008. An Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was also dismissed. Though, the petitioner has referred to certain oral observations made by the Hon'ble Bench at the time of dismissal of Special Leave Petition but since there is no such reference in the order dismissing the Special Leave Petition, we would not take any notice of submission of petitioner in person in respect thereof. It is also submitted that after dismissal of the petition, the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities of Government of India and the State Government but even after lapse of more than a year, no action has been taken as yet. The main ground as pleaded by the learned counsel is that the independence of judiciary being the basic structure of Constitution should be protected by the Executive Organ of the State.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties submitted that since the earlier writ petition filed before this Court was dismissed and the Special Leave Petition filed against the order of dismissal of writ petition was also dismissed, this writ petition would not lie.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings of writ petition. In the earlier petition [Writ Petition No.988 (MB) of 2008 (PIL)- Nyay Bharti vs. Union of India and others], a coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 15.02.2008 had passed a detailed order, which on reproduction reads as:
"This petition by a registered Society has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the the respondents to provide the State aeroplane and helicopter at the disposal of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the State and also the heads of the legislative wing of the Union and the State and also to provide S.P.G. Security to the Chief Justice of India and the N.S.G. (Z Plus Security) to the Chief Justice of the State and also the heads of legislative wing of the Union and the State, as provided to the Chief Minister and the Governor.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Pandey, that it is essential for independence of judiciary that the aforesaid facilities be provided and it should not be left to the discretion of the Chief Minister or any other authority to provide such facilities, when asked for, even if it is being provided to the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of the State, when such a requisition is made.
Likewise, security cover is also being asked for, which should also accompany an ambulance, which otherwise is allegedly not provided, even to the Chief Justice of India at some places. Instances have been given when proper treatment was not available on the spot.
A comparison has been attempted to be made with the security cover given to other persons and dignitaries and holders of high offices and non-availability of such facility to various others, including Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of the State.
In response, Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, submitted that the writ petition for the reliefs claimed is not maintainable at all, as no cause of action has accrued to make any such challenge before the Court or to make any prayer for issuing the directions, as prayed for. He has further argued that examples given in the writ petition about providing security cover to various person and not providing security of that degree to other persons including the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of the State, are not sufficient to make out a case for issuing a direction, as prayed. And that the aeroplane facility is being provided when asked for, to all the dignitaries entitled for the said facility.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel, however, placed before the Court the Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Viman/Helicopter Ka Prayog Aur Adhiyachan Niyamawali, 1982, which prescribe the manner in which and for whom the said services can be made available. He has also submitted that Directorate of Civil Aviation came into existence in 1980 and that the primary objective of the Civil Aviation Department is to provide air transport for law and order purposes, for relief and rescue purposes in case of calamities and for administrative purposes. The aircrafts are provided subject to their availability.
So far the security cover is concerned, he, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the necessary security is provided to all dignitaries, including the Chief Justice of State and his companion Judges and also to the Adhyaksh of the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, Sabhapati of Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Parishad and that if any occasion comes, which requires additional security, it is to be enhanced, so that adequate security always remains with them.
We have gone through the petition and also heard the arguments of the parties and we are of the view that the pleadings made in the writ petition do not call for any interference by the Court nor the petition can be entertained for the relief claimed.
It appears to be the own assessment of the petitioner that independence of the judiciary would be affected, in case the facility of aeroplane/helicopter is not made permanently available to the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of the State or that the administration would be adversely affected, if this facility is not provided to other dignitaries named in the writ petition. Such an inference is not supported by any reason nor is true.
A Public Interest Litigation must necessarily have an element of public good and must involve a larger public interest. Normally such litigation is espoused for pleading the cause of those, who are unaware of their rights and who do not have the knowledge and resources of putting their grievance before the Court. May be for lack of knowledge or poverty or for some other reason, if a person or group of persons is suffering the tyranny of the mighty or persons in power or otherwise, they remain out of the mainstream in the society, any public spirited person can approach the Court, who is not a busy body or interloper to plead for his cause. But every action or inaction of the State will not constitute a cause for Public Interest Litigation.
In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the pleadings in the writ petition, do not call for any consideration by the Court.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. "
(Emphasis Supplied) In the Special Leave Petition filed before Hon'ble the Apex Court against the aforesaid order the petitioner society Nyay Bharti had taken the following grounds:
"A. Because the judiciary should get all such necessary infrastructures through which it can serve the Judicial need of the people without loosing its independence. The Chief Justice of India should be given the security which is admissible to the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of State should be given the security of which the Chief Minister and Governor of State is entitled for.
B. Because the petitioner made a representation dated 16.1.2008, which is still pending.
C. Because the judiciary is a wing of the State entrusted with the duty of providing justice to the people. The higher judiciary (High Court and Supreme Court) has been given the independent status by the Constitution with a view to insure its independence.
D. Because the Union and State Government are having so many Aeroplanes and helicopters which are used by the top Government functionaries for moving from one place to another. The President, Prime Minister and the members of his counsel for Ministers and the top ranking bureaucrats working with the Central moving from one place to another and similarly the Governor, the Chief Minister and the members of his council of Ministers and also the bureaucrats use the plane and helicopters.
E. Because it has been also seen that the Attorney General, Advocate General and Additional Advocate General uses the State Plane and helicopters for attending the Court proceedings and other meetings.
F. Because the judges perform the duty of doing justice and while doing so, even they award the death sentences against the Criminals and the Terrorists.
G. Because the Courts have awarded the death sentence to many criminals and terrorists. The Courts also pass the orders against so many influential persons even the top ranking political leaders and bureaucrats during the course of delivering the justice and in view of developing criminal tendency in the society and specially the Jihaditerror attack on the courts, the Security to them is needed.
H. Because increase of the security cover of the judges will also entitle them to get the better quality of medical facilities at the time of urgent need.
I. Because the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of State, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha or the Vidhan Parishad, (the heads of judiciary and legislative) are not getting the proper security cover and are not provided the facility of State plane and helicopters.
J. Because it is clear that out of the three wings of the Government i.e. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, only the members of Executive Wing of the State use State planes and the other 2 wings are subjected to discrimination.
K. Because it violates the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and so, the petitioner being a part of judicial system of the nation, decided to raise this discrimination, insult and injustice before this Hon'ble Court by means of the present special leave petition.
L. Because not only the members of judiciary, the heads of the legislature are also subjected to the discrimination by not providing them with the State plane facility. The ministers, Advocate General, Additional Advocate Generals and other bureaucrats moves in the State plane but the heads of the legislative wing are not provided with the State plane facility and as such , the petitioner seeks the direction to all concerned in this regard too.
M. Because when President, Prime Minister, Mrs. Antonia Vadera and other highly secured persons travel, the medical team follow them but when the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court judges, Chief Justice of the State move, then the team of doctors does not follow them. This position needs to be changed. The Government should insure that the SPG cover security should also be provided to the Chief Justice of India and NSG cover (Z Plus) security should be given to the Chief Justice of State and medical team should also follow them.
N. Because the judges need security because they convict criminals and awards sentences including death sentence to them and the executive does not need security because they are having friendly relations with the criminals."
It is informed that the Special Leave petition was also dismissed. However, in the ground (E) of this writ petition the following averments have been made which are also supported by the affidavit of the petitioner in person.
"(E) Because while dismissing the Special Leave petition, the Chief Justice of India asked the petitioner to peruse the matter with the concerned authorities. The petitioner is pressurizing the authorities since then but till date no decision in this regard has been taken hence this petition is being filed by the petitioner who argued the matter before Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court and the counsel for Nyay Bharti."
As the writ petition and the Special Leave petition, both, were dismissed, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, looking to the post independence rapid developments in all the major spheres of State domain and civic life which have also expanded the area of Judicial intervention and consequent increase in the volume of litigation and that have now made us think about and find out the alternate modes of adjudication, like Mediation and Conciliation and also Lok Adalats etc. under the aegis of Legal Services Authorities etc., the mobility of judicial functionaries have considerably increased.
Moreover, in the case of T.N. Seshan vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 4 SCC 611, a 5 judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court has taken the view as:
"........Maintenance of the status of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts is highly desirable in the national interest. We mention this because of late we find that even personnel belonging to other fora claim equation with High Court and Supreme Court Judges merely because certain jurisdictions earlier exercised by those Courts are transferred to them not realising the distinction between constitutional and statutory functionaries. We would like to impress on the Government that it should not confer equivalence or interfere with the Warrant of Precedence, if it is likely to affect the position of High Court and Supreme Court Judges, however pressing the demand may be, without first seeking the views of the Chief Justice of India. We may add that Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the CEC, frankly conceded that the CEC could not legitimately claim to be equated with Supreme Court Judges. We do hope that the Government will take note of this and do the needful."
In this background, if the petitioner is trying to draw the attention of governments by making repeated representations which have not engaged the attention of authorities concerned so far, it may do no harm to the interest of any section of society, if this writ petition is treated as a further representation of the petitioner in continuation of the earlier ones to be placed before the Central Cabinet through the Cabinet Secretary at an early date.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is dismissed.
12.11.2010 Shahnaz/A. Katiyar