In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the President of the Bilaspur Lokhit Sanskritik Seva Samiti, Malhar, who sought the release of a sanctioned amount of ₹20 lakh for the organization of the Malhar Mahotsav. The festival, a cultural event of historical importance in the region, had not been held for six years due to financial constraints. The petitioner argued that the delay in releasing the funds jeopardized the timely execution of the festival, scheduled for March 29 to 31, 2025, and that the state's inaction would cause irreparable damage to the cultural heritage of Malhar.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, held that the petition was driven by a private agenda rather than genuine public interest. The court emphasized that PILs are intended to provide access to justice for the voiceless and should not be used to further private causes. The judges noted that the petitioner's motives did not align with the foundational principles of PILs, which are designed to address issues affecting the broader public.
The background of the case reveals that on November 23, 2024, the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh announced an increase in the grant for the Malhar Mahotsav from ₹5 lakh to ₹20 lakh to support the festival's revival. This announcement was further endorsed by the Central Minister for Housing & Urban Affairs, leading the Department of Culture and Official Language to issue a sanction letter. However, the release of funds was delayed due to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) during local body elections. Although the elections concluded and the MCC was lifted, the funds remained unreleased, prompting the petitioner to file the PIL.
The petitioner also sought to restrain the Collector's office from interfering with the festival's management and to allow their organization to conduct the event, citing past practices. They contended that the state's failure to act violated their legitimate expectations and constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. However, the court found that the petitioner's demands were more aligned with personal interests than with public welfare.
The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity of PILs. It reiterates that such litigations should not be misused for personal gains or to settle private scores. By dismissing the PIL, the court sent a clear message that the judiciary will not entertain petitions that do not genuinely serve the public interest. This ruling serves as a reminder that while cultural events like the Malhar Mahotsav are significant, the mechanisms to support them must be pursued through appropriate channels and not under the guise of public interest litigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.