The Supreme Court dismissed a petition raising multiple unrelated issues, with CJI Surya Kant stressing that litigants must seek only one clear relief per petition and cannot combine diverse grievances in a single plea.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition after strongly criticising the manner in which it was drafted, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant expressing concern over the inclusion of multiple unrelated issues in a single plea. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Hon’ble the CJI, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
The Bench questioned who had advised the petitioner to file what it described as a “mixed-up” petition, noting that the petitioner repeatedly shifted from one subject to another. During the hearing, the petitioner at times referred to personal therapy undertaken in the United States, while at other times raised entirely different public and constitutional issues.
Emphasising the importance of proper legal drafting, CJI Surya Kant stated that a petition must be structured clearly and confined to one specific issue, rather than being a compilation of unrelated grievances.
When the petitioner claimed that the case involved “four interlinked constitutional wrongs since 1958,” the Bench remained unconvinced. Flipping through the pages, the CJI repeatedly asked the petitioner to stick to concrete and specific issues.
“Babaji, if you have ten different reliefs, you have to file ten different petitions. You cannot file one petition and ask for different kinds of relief,”
the CJI remarked.
The Bench advised the petitioner to withdraw the present plea and rethink the relief sought before approaching the Court again.
“Better withdraw this petition. First think about what relief you want — only one. We are not promising that we will entertain your petition, but we will examine it if you file a petition confined to one issue,”
the CJI said.
The Court made it clear that unrelated issues cannot be clubbed together merely because they are framed as constitutional concerns.
Drawing a sharp distinction between the subjects raised, the Chief Justice observed:
“This 50% tariff issue in India has nothing to do with protection of temples. These are two completely different issues.”
The Bench pointed out that the petition variously touched upon cow protection, temple protection, food practices, and tariff policies, without establishing any logical or legal interconnection.
“Sometimes it is cow protection, sometimes temples, sometimes food practices, sometimes tariffs. There is no interconnectivity,”
the Court noted.
While expressing frustration, the Court also offered assistance, stating that legal aid could be provided to help draft a proper petition, but cautioned against wasting judicial time.
“If you need, we will provide you assistance of an advocate for drafting. Otherwise, please don’t waste your time — and don’t waste our time,”
the Bench warned.
Referring to earlier cases filed by the same petitioner, the Bench remarked that this was not an isolated instance.
“We have heard you earlier also. Every time, there are multiple issues raised with no connection,”
the Court observed.
Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition outright, holding:
“The petition is wholly misconceived and cannot be entertained. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies separately with respect to all the issues.”
The CJI clarified that the dismissal should not be interpreted as a ruling on the substance of the issues raised.
“We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the multiple issues raised,”
the Court stated.
With these observations, the matter was dismissed.
Case Title:
BADARAVADA VENUGOPAL @ BABA KHATARNAK PRADHAN CHARAN SEVAK @ SHRI YAMADITYA MANDIR vs. UNION OF INDIA
W.P.(C) No. 1146 / 2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI Surya Kant
Click Here to Read More Reports on Supreme Court
