Factual Matrix
In the Instant Matter at hand, Naresh Sharma v. Union of India IIT Kanpur, IIT Bombay, and IIT Delhi alumni who filed the suit claim that his basic right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been violated. He asserts that respondents violated his basic right by criminally creating public organisations. The petitioner further asserts that the respondents have violated their right to see their criminal histories.
Analysis of Court Order
Given the frequency of pointless litigation putting a strain on the already overworked judiciary, the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma slapped costs of Rs. 30,000 on each of the three petitions.
The Court determined that the petitioner levelled blatant accusations against the respondents, which included businesses, trusts, previous and current governments, individuals holding constitutional posts, and public organisations. The petitioner, however, did not offer any proof to back up his assertions. The petitioner demanded that the Central Vista Project building be demolished in addition to criminal charges being brought against him because of the contract that was given to one of the respondents, the court further stated. According to the second petition, hundreds of nationally significant institutions, including IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS, were formed illegally. The petitioner described events starting in 1951 and claimed that the issue was caused by the then-Indian government’s alleged illicit establishment of Viswa Bharati.
The Court noted that the petitioner, who was born in 1972, claimed that a century-old incident violated his basic right to privacy. In the third petition, the petitioner argued that he had a fundamental right to request information concerning his criminal history and that the relevant authorities had a duty to comply. However, after several complaints and appeals, the authorities have not granted the petitioner’s request. The petitioner said that he reported corporate crimes and the Indian government to the police, and he suspects that he may have been the target of fabricated accusations. The petitioner was advised by the Central District, Delhi Police public information officer that no complaint or FIR had been filed against them. The petitioner expressed his displeasure with the circumstances, saying he wanted the police to lodge a criminal charge against him.
The Court determined that the reliefs requested in three petitions lacked sufficient factual or legal support and were inadequate in terms of phrasing. The petitioner failed to provide evidence that some essential constitutional rights, such as the right to participate in public organisations free from criminal connections and the right to inquire about one’s criminal history, are protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. In order to protect individual rights, advance equality, and settle conflicts, the Court emphasised the significance of access to justice. The Court acknowledged its responsibility to uphold the rights of plaintiffs who are acting pro se, but it urged the Bar Council of India to address the issue of unethical behaviour and set rules for self-represented litigants. The petition was written by the petitioner, an IIT Delhi and Bombay alumnus, who was ordered to pay Rs 30,000 for each petition.
CASE NAME – Naresh Sharma v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL) 1797 of 2023