SC bars woman from filing PIL for arraying President as party

The Supreme Court today barred a woman and others from filing any PIL in any court in the country for making President Pranab Mukherjee as a party in her case and termed her petition as "absolutely malicious, vexatious and unjusticiable".
"It is an assault on the Constitution, more so when the high constitutional authorities are involved. They have, with incurable audacity, made allegations against the respondents which are absolutely unacceptable and, in fact, can never be conceived of.
"No litigant can be permitted to browbeat or malign the system. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of the institution and the public confidence in the delivery of justice. It is sheer malice. The question of issuance of any kind of writ does not arise.

"On the contrary, we are disposed to think that the grievance that has been agitated is absolutely unjusticiable," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi said.
The apex court noted that petitioners Anindita and others have not been present in court after filing the petition and termed the plea as "vexatious and, in fact, is an expression of pervert proclivity".
The bench said the present writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution "is absolutely the product of disgruntled minds obsessed with their own litigation" as they have approached the court earlier in some appeals but could not meet with success.

"They have imagined situations which are beyond realm of any kind of justiciability. A Constitution Bench of this court in 2006 has clearly held that the President of India cannot be arrayed as a party to the litigation. Despite the said pronouncement, the petitioners being emboldened by some kind of imaginative faculty have described the President as Respondent No.1," the bench said.

The apex court said that a litigant has space as far as he is concerned in the justice dispensation system, but he cannot assume the role that he is "the monarch of all he surveys" and "his ego, however colossal it may be, deserves condemnation and we do decry".

Barring the petitioners from filing any PIL in future in any constitutional court, the court said that none of their petition under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution shall be entertained unless they are personally grieved.
"If the petitioners deviate from this direction, they shall be liable for contempt of this court," it said while dismissing the plea.