Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging BPSC chairman’s appointment, calling it factless and publicity-driven. Bench says, “If you are filing a PIL then you have to give your life to it.”
New Delhi: Today, on July 18, the Supreme Court recently expressed serious concern over a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the appointment of Manubhai Parmar as the Chairman of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar heard the matter and strongly cautioned the petitioner, advocate Brajesh, for filing a PIL that lacked proper facts and seriousness.
Also Read: CBI Reveals Fake School Used to Forge Certificates in Lalu Yadav’s Land-for-Job Scam
The bench made it clear that filing a PIL is not a matter to be taken lightly or used for publicity purposes. Addressing the petitioner directly, the court said,
“If you are filing a PiL then you have to give your life to it… Please do not go behind this publicity business.”
This remark underlined the Court’s disapproval of using the PIL mechanism without genuine concern or proper groundwork.
Earlier, on February 3, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Bihar government and Manubhai Parmar, seeking their responses to the petition.
Additionally, the Court had appointed advocate Vanishaja Shukla as amicus curiae, meaning a friend of the court, to assist in the matter and provide unbiased legal opinion.
The PIL, filed by lawyer Brajesh, challenged the appointment of Parmar as the BPSC Chairperson, which was made on March 15, 2024.
The petitioner claimed that the appointment was against the constitutional principle that only individuals with “impeccable character” should be selected for such high constitutional positions.
The petition argued that Parmar is an accused in an ongoing corruption case registered by Bihar’s Vigilance Bureau.
This case is currently pending before a special court in Patna. According to the PIL,
“Thus apparently, respondent number 2 (Parmar) is facing serious charges of committing the offence of corruption and forgery and as such his integrity is doubtful and therefore, he ought not to have been appointed as the chairman of BPSC.”
The petitioner contended that someone facing such serious allegations cannot be considered to have an “impeccable character.”
Also Read: [Cash-for-Jobs Scam] “Hearing on Partha Chatterjee Plea Adjourned”: Supreme Court
It was further claimed that Parmar does not even meet the basic eligibility criteria for being appointed to such an important constitutional post.
“It claimed that Parmar did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria for being appointed to the constitutional post of chairperson as he was not a person with an impeccable character.”
The Supreme Court has now taken the matter into consideration, but has also warned against filing baseless PILs. The Court’s remarks are a strong reminder that Public Interest Litigations must be used responsibly and with genuine purpose, not for mere publicity.
The matter is still under review, and further hearings are awaited as both the Bihar government and Parmar have been asked to submit their responses.
Click Here to Read More Reports On BPSC
