Litigation Can't Be A Sport For Mischievous: Allahabad High Court Penalises 'Busybody' Lawyer, Directs Pro Bono Work In 5 Cases

As a penalty, a bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot directed him to assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a pro bono basis.

The Court noted that the petitioner was neither an employee of the Jal Nigam nor the disciplinary authority and thus had no locus standi to seek action against the government servant.

The Court underscored that the service rules of government employees are a 'bulwark of independence' of government servants and enable them to function without fear of any outside interference.

In its order, the Bench also warned that entertaining complaints from outsiders who are 'busybodies and interlopers' will have far reaching consequences on the functioning of government and would 'adversely impact the morale' of the government servants.

Such persons, it held, have to be deterred, and the Government employees should be safeguarded.

The bench also noted that public interest litigation is not maintainable in service matters and also stressed the distinction between an 'aggrieved' party and an 'annoyed' party. It also emphasised that only a person whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised can invoke writ jurisdiction.

"Litigation cannot be a sport for the mischievous and courts are not the play field for interlopers”, Justice Bhanot remarked.

Furthermore, noting that the petitioner is a lawyer, the Court reminded that members of the bar have a special responsibility to be dutiful citizens and not exploit their privileges as lawyers by initiating such malafides litigation.

In light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court imposed a penalty directing the advocate in question to assist the trial court in Gautam Budh Nagar in five cases on a pro bono basis to be allocated by the District Legal Services Authority.

While dismissing the petition, the Bench also clarified that its order will not affect the proceedings against respondent no. 3 pending before other authorities, including Lok Ayukta, which may proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the HC's order.