Isabella Mariam

The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to invalidate Panchayat elections conducted in Scheduled Areas, stating that no constitutional or legal embargo prevented such elections. The Court further directed that the security amount deposited by the petitioners shall stand forfeited, underscoring the necessity to preserve the sanctity of the PIL jurisdiction and prevent its misuse for extraneous purposes.

The petitioners, led by Rajkumar Yadav (in person), and others including Bijendra Kumar, Parasnath, Shivkumar, and Rampratap, approached the Court under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation. They contested the validity of Panchayat elections conducted in Scheduled Areas of Chhattisgarh, alleging violations of Articles 243 and related provisions of the Constitution of India and the Panchayat Raj Act.

Also Read: Section 61(2) IBC | Appeal Beyond 45 Days Barred | Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT Order Allowing Time-Barred Appeal

The petitioners presented an array of reliefs, including declarations against land acquisitions in Scheduled Areas, cancellation of caste certificates issued in these regions, and instructions to regulate administrative actions strictly through Gazetted Notifications.

The State, represented by Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, argued that the Constitution under Schedule-V explicitly empowers the State to conduct Panchayat elections in Scheduled Areas unless a prohibition notification is issued by the Governor. No such notification was in force in Chhattisgarh. This submission was supported by a direct reference to Schedule-V, which states:

"The Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or of the Legislative of the State shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof..."

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, and Mr. Ventakesh Pandey, holding brief for Mr. R.S. Marhas, appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, supported the State’s position and opposed the PIL on grounds of vagueness and lack of specific grievance.

The Bench recorded that the petitioners failed to establish any legal basis or factual material to justify their prayers. The judgment records:

"It is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive, and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations."

The Court also stated that the credentials of the petitioners did not reflect any significant standing or connection to the alleged grievances beyond their identification as agriculturists. The Court further observed that the petition clubbed various unrelated issues, making it impossible to adjudicate effectively.

Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010 AIR SCW 1029), the Bench reiterated:

"Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives."

The Court also referred to Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. vs. Prem Chand Mishra (2007) 14 SCC 281, noting:

"Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL... yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances... are standing in a long serpentine queue... the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers... break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation."

Also Read: Sikkim High Court Restores Arbitral Award In Road Works Dispute | Commercial Court Exceeded Powers Under Section 34 | Arbitrator Not Functus Officio As Award Was Within Extended Timeline

Finding the PIL vague and devoid of any substantial foundation, the Court concluded that the petition was an abuse of the process.

The Court recorded: "We do not find any good ground to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. The instant Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, dismissed. The security amount so deposited by the petitioners shall stand forfeited."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners:    Mr. Rajkumar Yadav, in person

For the Respondents: Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Ventakesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Mr. R.S. Marhas

Case Title: Bijendra Kumar & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:21565-DB

Case Number: WPPIL No. 52 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

[Read/Download order]