HC orders Rs 5 lakh cost, registration of extortion case for frivolous PIL

The Bombay High Court on Thursday imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a petitioner who had filed a PIL against the Council of Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE), and directed that a case of extortion be registered against him.

Sapan Shrivastava, the petitioner, had filed the public interest litigation against the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) and CISCE in 2016.

He claimed that the CISCE was "operating the ICSE (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education) and ISC (Indian School Certificate) board curricula in schools across the country without approval from the HRD Ministry.

A bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Bharati Dangre said the claim had no substance, and dismissed the PIL.

The court also noted that Shrivastava, who claimed to be an activist, was a regular litigant. Imposing a cost on him, it directed the court registrar to ensure that he deposited Rs 5 lakh in four weeks, to be paid to the CISCE.

It further asked the CISCE to file a case of extortion against him.

The bench said the registry must not allow him to file any more petitions until he "produced proof" of having paid the cost of Rs 5 lakh.

CISCE lawyer, senior advocate Raju Subramaniam, said it did not wish to accept such money. But the judges said the CISCE should accept it and spend it for educational purposes or give it to a school.

Shrivastava had sought to raise money for the litigation by posting about his PIL on crowd-funding website Milaap.

The high court directed the website to "remove or block his post", and added that he was "misusing" the portal.

Shrivastava had claimed in the PIL that a reply from the MHRD to his query under the Right to Information revealed that the CISCE was "operating ICSE and ISC boards" in more than 2,000 schools "without approval from the HRD Ministry".

The boards and their curricula were, thus, illegal and jeopardised the future of lakhs of students, he said.

But the CISCE and MHRD lawyers contended that there was no legal provision that required the ministry to grant any specific approval to CISCE for operating ICSE and ISC boards.

Advocate Subramaniam said the CISCE was an independent board of school education, and its curriculum was used following approvals of the central or the concerned state governments as education is on both state and Union lists of subjects in the Constitution.