form and procedure of petitions

Supreme Court of India
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
Author: P Bhagwati
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.
           PETITIONER:
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA

    Vs.

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1983

BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
PATHAK, R.S.
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

PER PATHAK, J CONCURRING
    
  3:1. A practice has grown in the public of invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court by a simple letter complaining of
a legal     injury to  the author    or to  some other  person or
group of persons, and the Court has treated such letter as a
petition under    Article 32  and entertained  the  proceeding
without anything  more. It  is only  comparatively  recently
that the Court has begun to call for the filing of a regular
petition on  the letter. There is grave danger inherent in a
practice where    a mere    letter is  entertained as a petition
from a person whose antecedents and status are unknown or so
uncertain that    no  sense  of  responsibility  can,  without
anything more,    be attributed to the communication. There is
good reason  for the  insistence on a document being set out
in a  form, or    accompanied by evidence, indicating that the
allegations  made   in    it   are  made     with  a   sense  of
responsibility by  a person  who  has  taken  due  care     and
caution to  verify those  allegations before  making them. A
plaint instituting  a suit  is required by the Code of Civil
Procedure to  conclude with a clause verifying the pleadings
contained in it. A petition or application filed in court is
required to  be supported on affidavit. These safeguards are
necessary because  the document,  a plaint  or    petition  or
application, commences    a course of litigation involving the
expenditure of    public time  and public     money,     besides  in
appropriate cases  involving the  issue of summons or notice
to the    defendant or  respondent to  appear and     contest the
proceeding. Men     are busy  conducting the  affairs of  their
daily lives,  and no  one occupied with the responsibilities
and  pressures    of  present  day  existence  welcomes  being
summoned to  a law  court and  involved in  a litigation.  A
document making     allegations without  any proof     whatever of
responsibility can  conceivably constitute  an abuse  of the
process of  law. Therefore,  in     special  circumstances     the
document  petitioning    the  court   for  relief  should  be
supported by  satisfactory verification. This requirement is
all the     greater where    petitions are  received by the Court
through     the   post.  It   is  never  beyond  the  bound  of
possibility  that   an    unverified   communication  received
through the post by the court may in fact have been employed
mala fide,  as an  instrument of  coercion or  blackmail  or
other oblique  motive against  a person     named    therein     who
holds a position of honour and respect in society. The Court
must be     ever vigilant    against the abuse of its process. It
cannot do  that better    in this matter than insisting at the
earliest stage, and before issuing notice to the respondent,
that an     appropriate  verification  of    the  allegations  be
supplied. The  requirement  is    imperative  in    private     law
litigation. Having  regard to  its nature and purpose, it is
equally attracted  to public interest litigation. While this
Court has  readily acted  upon letters    and telegrams in the
past,  there  is  need    to  insist  now     on  an     appropriate
verification of     the petitioner     other communication  before
acting on  it. It  will always    be a matter for the court to
decide. on  what petition  will it  require verification and
when will it waive the rule. [157 B-H; 158 A-C]
     3:2. All  communications  and  petitions  invoking     the
jurisdiction of     the Court  must be  addressed to the entire
Court, that  is to  say, the Chief Justice and his companion
judges, No  such communication    or petition  can properly be
addressed
82
to a particular judge. When the jurisdiction of the Court is
invoked, it  the jurisdiction  of the  entire  court.  Which
Judge or  Judges will  hear the case is exclusively a matter
concerning the    internal regulation  of the  business of the
Court, interference  with which     by a  litigant or member of
the public  constitutes the grossest impropriety. It is well
established that  when a  division of  the Court  house     and
decides cases  it is  in law  regarded as  a hearing  and  a
decision by  the Court    itself. The  judgment pronounced and
the decree  or    order  made  are  acts    of  the     Court,     and
accordingly  they   are     respected,   obeyed  and   enforced
throughout the    land. It  is only right and proper that this
should be  known clearly  to the  lay public. Communications
and petitions  addressed to  a particular Judge are improper
and violate the institutional personality of the Court. They
also  embarrass     the  judge  to     whom  they  are  personally
addressed. The    fundamental conception    of the Court must be
respected, that     is  a    single    indivisible  institution  of
united    purpose      and    existing   solely   for      the    high
constitutional functions  for which it has been created. The
conception of  the Court  as a loose aggregate of individual
Judges, to  one or  more of  whom  judicial  access  may  be
particularly  had,   undermines     its   very  existence     and
endangers its  proper and  effective functioning.  [158 E-H;
159 A]