PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the medical evaluation of Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar.
The bench, comprising Justice R M Borde and Justice Prithviraj Chavan, slammed activist petitioner Trajano D’Mello for suppressing material facts and making unsubstantiated allegations to infringe into the right of privacy of the CM. It also pulled up D’Mello for filing the PIL, citing that the plea should be categorised as ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’ or ‘political interest litigation’.
“The litigation initiated under the garb of public interest litigation shall have to be categorised, as has been branded by the Supreme Court, either as a ‘publicity interest litigation’ or a ‘private interest litigation’ or a ‘political interest litigation’. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed materials facts as regards his political affiliation. The facts in the petition are based merely on unverified newspaper reports. The allegations made in the petition are merely based on presumptions and those have not been substantiated, though serious allegations are made in respect of functioning of the Office of the Chief Minister. There is absolutely no material to substantiate those allegations,” the bench observed while pronouncing its verdict on Thursday.
The Court also reprimanded the petitioner for imputations of ill-mental health of the CM with no care taken to verify whether the allegations are true or false.
In what could be a relief for the BJP, the bench stated that the constitutional functionary, merely on account of CM’s ill-health is not incapable to occupy the constitutional position which he occupies on account of his proven majority before the House of Legislature. It further said that any individual who has rival political interest has to adopt a democratic method to unsettle the political power.
“The petitioner, by making unsubstantiated allegations seeks intervention of this Court to make a deep inroad into the right of privacy of the CM who also holds individual right of privacy as a citizen of this country. Claiming relief of examination of the CM by a panel of doctors and to report the outcome to the public is outrageous, overstepping in the territory of privacy of an individual and which would be impermissible in law to grant such request. There is no legislation in place which can form foundation of the claim raised in the petition,” the court said.
The 51-page order also pointed out that the petitioner seeking strictly private and confidential information which is within the realm of privacy of the CM was without making him a party to the petition. As such, the petition, without CM as a party respondent, ‘is not entertainable and deserves to be dismissed’.
