2003 (11) TMI 589 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the death sentence imposed on one Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) by the Sessions Court, Alipur, West Bengal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and this Court, needs to be converted to a life sentence because there has been no execution of the death sentence for a long time?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner
2. Prolonged Delay in Execution of Death Sentence
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Abuse

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed to have locus standi as a public-spirited citizen under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the matter involved the life and liberty of a citizen. The Court questioned the petitioner's standing, emphasizing that only a person acting bona fide with sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest litigation (PIL) has locus standi. The Court cited several precedents, such as Janata Dal vs. H.S. Choudhary, emphasizing that PILs should not be used for personal gain, private profit, or political motives. The Court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate a genuine public interest and was merely acting on speculative grounds without verifying the facts.

2. Prolonged Delay in Execution of Death Sentence:
The petitioner argued that the prolonged delay in executing the death sentence of the accused caused mental torture, warranting a conversion to a life sentence based on the precedent set in Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat. The Court noted that the Governor of West Bengal and the President of India had already rejected similar pleas in 1994. The Court found no substantial evidence or verified information to support the petitioner's claim of mental torture due to the delay. The Court emphasized that speculative foundations and unconfirmed news could not substantiate such serious allegations.

3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Abuse:
The Court extensively discussed the misuse of PILs, highlighting that PILs should not be "publicity interest litigation," "private interest litigation," or "politics interest litigation." The Court stressed the need for genuine public interest and warned against the abuse of PILs by busybodies or meddlesome interlopers. The Court cited numerous cases, including S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, to underline the importance of bona fide intentions and sufficient interest in PILs. The Court concluded that the petitioner's PIL was frivolous and speculative, serving no genuine public interest and wasting valuable judicial time.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not a fit case to be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner failed to establish locus standi, did not provide verified information regarding the alleged delay in execution, and misused the PIL mechanism. The Court reiterated the need for self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants and the importance of genuine public interest in PILs. The petition was dismissed without costs.