Litigants filing PIL must disclose all material facts and approach the court with clean hands. Scandalizing the court through social media can constitute criminal contempt. Frivolous PILs should be discouraged through exemplary costs and strict procedural compliance.

Petitioner’s tweets scandalized the court and were not bona fide. Petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts regarding prior litigation. Mandatory requirements under Rule 5 and 7 of Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 were not fulfilled. PIL was dismissed with no relief granted. Criminal contempt was established, but no proceedings were initiated considering petitioner’s retraction.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 2(c) – Definition of cognizable offence.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120B, 505(1)(b)(c), 505(2), 506, 504 – Criminal conspiracy, intent to incite offences, and criminal intimidation.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) – Criminal contempt by scandalizing the court.

Subjects:

Public Interest Litigation – Bona Fide – Suppression of Facts – Scandalizing Court – Criminal Contempt – Maintainability – Transparency – Fraudulent Bank Guarantee – Locus Standi – Exemplary Costs

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – PIL was filed alleging fraudulent acceptance of bank guarantees by Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) from Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. (MEIL).
2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – Petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought CBI or SIT investigation into the alleged fraud and cancellation of the contract awarded to MEIL.
3. Reason for Filing the Case – Petitioner contended that Euro Exim Bank, which issued certain guarantees, was neither a scheduled nor a commercial bank approved by RBI.
4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? – A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the PIL was raised on the grounds of petitioner’s lack of bona fides, suppression of material facts, and scandalization of the court through tweets.

Issues:

1. Whether the petitioner’s conduct in publishing tweets was bona fide and amounted to scandalizing the court?
2. Whether the petitioner was guilty of suppression of facts?
3. Whether the petitioner complied with mandatory procedural requirements under Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010?
4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief?
5. Whether criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Respondents argued that:
  a. Petitioner had a history of litigation against MEIL, which was not disclosed.
  b. Tweets scandalized the court and amounted to criminal contempt.
  c. The PIL was filed with ulterior motives and lacked bona fides.
• Petitioner contended that:
  a. Tweets were inappropriate but removed within five days.
  b. PIL raised a genuine public interest issue.
  c. The litigation history did not have a legal nexus with the present case.