On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court turned down a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) targeting Truecaller, accusing the global caller ID platform of infringing on the privacy rights of Indian citizens. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over a division bench, rejected the review petition and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000. Ajay Shukla, representing himself, filed the plea seeking a review of a verdict issued on February 12, which dismissed his PIL.
The Delhi High Court, a significant stance was taken against frivolous litigations under the guise of public interest. The court imposed a financial penalty on an individual for seeking a review of a previously dismissed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the popular mobile application, Truecaller. This case underscores the judiciary’s approach to handling claims perceived as attempts to misuse the legal system for personal publicity.
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, handed down a fine of ₹10,000 to the petitioner, Ajay Shukla, for his attempts to challenge the Court’s prior decision. The original PIL lodged by Shukla against the Union of India and others was aimed at addressing privacy concerns associated with Truecaller, an app known for identifying callers from unknown numbers.
In his original plea, Shukla accused Truecaller of infringing upon privacy by disseminating third-party information without consent. He argued that the app invades personal privacy by accessing and sharing users’ contact details, including addresses, emails, and potentially labelling individuals as ‘spam’ without their permission. Shukla’s concerns highlighted the tension between technological convenience and privacy rights, questioning the ethical boundaries of digital applications.
However, the narrative took a pivotal turn when Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Shashank Garg, representing the Union government, dismissed the PIL as a ‘publicity interest litigation’. Garg brought to light that Shukla had previously approached the Supreme Court with a similar plea, which had been rejected without granting him the freedom to seek relief from the High Court.
The Delhi High Court’s decision on February 12 to dismiss the PIL was predicated on the Supreme Court’s earlier dismissal, interpreting Shukla’s actions as an attempt at re-litigation and a misuse of the judicial process. The High Court criticized the lack of transparency regarding the Supreme Court proceedings in the writ petition, condemning the approach as an abuse of the legal system.
Subsequent to the dismissal, Shukla filed a review plea, which was promptly rejected by the same bench. This act led to the imposition of costs on Shukla, reflecting the Court’s stance against unnecessary legal challenges and highlighting the consequences of persistently pursuing legally untenable claims.
This incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between safeguarding individual rights and preventing the legal system from being exploited. The fine levied by the Delhi High Court is a testament to its commitment to maintaining the sanctity of Public Interest Litigations and ensuring that they are not reduced to tools for personal gain or publicity.
The case of Ajay Shukla vs. Union of India and Others sets a precedent for future litigants, signaling that the courts will not hesitate to impose sanctions against those who attempt to burden the judicial infrastructure with groundless claims. It reiterates the essential principle that while the legal system exists to protect and vindicate rights, it should not be used as a platform for pursuing personal agendas under the guise of public interest.
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
