Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Sri Prince Lenin, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2.
By filing the present public interest litigation the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus by directing the respondent no. 2 to conduct a high level enquiry with regard to leaking of entrance exam paper for the selection of Senior Residents in the department of Oral Pathology & Microbiology held on 21.07.2019 with a further prayer to conduct the re-examination to the said post by any other university/agency outside the control of King George's Medical University (hereinafter referred as "KGMU") and take strict action against the erring officials/faculty/staff/residents as per the outcome of the enquiry report and initiate criminal proceedings against such guilty persons.
Brief facts of the case are that on 06.06.2019 an advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Senior Residents vide Entrance Examination for Unregistered Senior Residents (Post MD/MS/MDS/DNB Specialty) 2019-20. As per the said advertisement total 312 vacancies of Senior Residents were published out of which 224 vacancies were for the General category candidates, 52 for Other Backward Class candidates and 36 for Scheduled Caste candidates and last date for applying the said post was 10.07.2019, admit card was to be issued on 15.07.2019 and the entrance exam was scheduled to take place on 21.07.2019. The aforesaid advertisement was uploaded on the official website of the KGMU after delay of one month on 07.07.2019, thereafter, on 21.07.2019 the entrance examination took place at KGMU.
According to the petitioner out of 100 multiple choice questions, 06 questions were wrong, 02 were repeated and one was having only two options. It is submitted that thereafter on 25.07.2019 the aforesaid examination was cancelled due to leaking of entrance examination paper. On 26.07.2019 the news regarding cancellation of entrance examination for the selection of Senior Residents in the department of Oral Pathology & Microbiology was published in several newspapers. On 27.07.2019 several news reports depicting the prevailing corruption within the KGMU was also published in several daily newspapers. On 08.08.2019 news report highlighting the inaction on the part of the KGMU authorities and their approach in protecting the guilty staff was also published in newspapers. It is further submitted that the same authorities of KGMU are going to organize re-examination for the said post on 21.08.2019. It is also alleged that 09 candidates had appeared in the previous entrance examination held on 21.07.2019 and information of re-examination has been sent only to 08 candidates, which itself raises serious doubts on the examination authorities.
Learned counsel further submits that without conducting fair and proper enquiry and investigation in the matter with regard to leaking of question paper in connivance of the responsible authorities within the KGMU, re-examination scheduled to take place on 21.08.2019 by the same committee is highly objectionable and lacks confidence of the people at large. It is submitted that in order to instill confidence in the minds of people regarding the fair and proper selection of Doctors/Senior Residents, who are entrusted the job of saving lives of the patients, there exists need of high level enquiry and initiation of criminal proceedings against the guilty persons and, as such, this Court should come to rescue the petitioner by allowing the prayer made in this public interest litigation.
Sri Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner who is a resident of District Barabanki has failed to show and substantiate any public cause by filing of present public interest litigation and he is in habit of filing PILs for extraneous considerations. He further submits that on complaint being made previous examination had already been cancelled and now after examining all aspect of matter new date of re-examination has been fixed. Learned counsel submits that all the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the KGMU authorities are based on newspaper report and newspaper reports by themselves are not an evidence of the contents thereof, those reports are only hearsay evidence and prays for dismissal of present public interest litigation.
The jurisprudence of public interest litigation has been developed by superior courts with a pious objective and the said objective is to extend the reach of the superior courts for redressing genuine grievance of those sections of the society, which are under privileged or are in some disadvantageous situation. Keeping in view the objective for which the concept of public interest litigation has been developed by superior courts of our land, any litigation being brought to the court in public interest should, thus, be based on concrete facts and relevant material. Mere bald assertions of irregularities in any action of the State would not constitute a good cause to entertain the petition by this Court while exercising its PIL jurisdiction.
It is needless to say, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, that the Court must interfere where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where such interference is not warranted. It is noticeable that the courts are flooded with large number of frivolous public interest litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Holicow Pictures (Private) Limited vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 has observed that though the courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigation, however, only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigation. It has further been observed that unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, sometime the courts are entertaining such petitions which ultimately waste valuable judicial time which can otherwise be utilized for disposal of genuine cases. The public interest litigation is a tool evolved by our superior courts, however, the same is to be used with great care and circumspection and the courts have to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest there may not lie any private malice, vested interest or publicity.
Hon'ble Supreme Court recognizing the need to maintain purity and sanctity in the public interest litigation, has issued exhaustive guidelines in its judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, wherein it has been clearly provided that the courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. In para 181 of the said judgment rendered in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the courts should be satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL and that the court should be satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining any such petition.
Before adverting to the above contentions, this Court deems it fit to consider, as to whether, newspaper reports, can be given any credence.
As regards nature and admissibility of a newspaper report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319, opined that "...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78 (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kanta reported in 1994 (1) SCC 452, examined the question as to whether mere production of the copy of the newspaper be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item). The Apex Court in paragraph 48 of the said judgment held as under;
"48.Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent."
On due consideration of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the newspaper reports, without any basis has no value at all. Moreover the persons affected are the candidates who are also very qualified and are aware of their rights and significantly none of the persons, so affected, have approached this Court. Thus for all the reasons as mentioned above, we find that the averments made in the writ petition are baseless and without any proof. Present public interest litigation is nothing but a publicity oriented writ petition.
For the reasons, stated supra, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ Jaspreet Singh, J. ] [ Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J. ] Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Shekhar