शिमला। धर्मशाला में फर्जी गैंगरेप कांड को लेकर सोशल मीडिया में सरकार के मंत्रियों और विधायकों पर उठे सवालों को लेकर हाईकोर्ट में अनुराग शर्मा नामक शख्स की ओर से दायर जनहित याचिका पर प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार के मंत्री व एमएलए केखिलाफ कड़ी टिप्पणी की है। हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि येयाचिका राजनीतिक फायदे को […]
शिमला। धर्मशाला में फर्जी गैंगरेप कांड को लेकर सोशल मीडिया में सरकार के मंत्रियों और विधायकों पर उठे सवालों को लेकर हाईकोर्ट में अनुराग शर्मा नामक शख्स की ओर से दायर जनहित याचिका पर प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार के मंत्री व एमएलए केखिलाफ कड़ी टिप्पणी की है। हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि येयाचिका राजनीतिक फायदे को हासिल करने के लिए दायर की गई लगती है। मुख्य न्यायाधीश मंसूर अहमद मीर व जस्टिस त्रिलोक चौहान ने याचिका का डिसमिस करते हुए टिप्पणी की है कि ये याचिका मंत्री/एमएलए की ओर से इस अदालत से राजनीतिक फायदे के लिए जनहित याचिका के नकाब में आदेश हासिल करने के लिए इस अदालत की क्षेत्राधिकार को इस्तेमाल करने की कोशिश है।जिनके खिलाफ आरोप लगाए गए थे वो इस अदालत में राहत लेने के लिए ख्ुाद नहीं आए है। दोनों जजों ने टिप्पणी की है ”हम हैरान है कि उक्त मंत्री /विधायक और मंत्री के कथित भतीजे ने अपने दुख दर्द के निवारण के लिए कोई उपयुक्त उपाय नहीं किया ।
हाईकोर्ट की अंग्रेजी में ये टिप्पणी इस तरह से है–
The police authorities are seized of the matter and it is for the police to carry out investigation and if case is made out or if false statement has been made, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC”) can be invoked.
8. The persons, against whom allegations have been made, are not before the Court and it appears that under the disguise of public interest, they are trying to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in order to meet the political ends on behalf of the Cabinet Minister/MLA, mention of which has been made in para 6 of the writ petition. We wonder why the said Minister/MLA and so called the nephew of the Minister have not invoked the appropriate remedy, if any, in order to seek the redressal of their grievances.
प्रदेश सरकार के केबिनेट मंत्री का नाम लिए बगैर हाईकोर्ट की इस टिप्पणी के कई मायने है।
गौरतलब हो कि धर्मशाला में फर्जी गैंगरेप कांड पर खूब हल्ला मचा था।भाजपा ने इस कांड में सीधे -सीधे केबिनेट मंत्री सुधीर शर्मा को घेर लिया था। उधर, सोशल मीडिया पर सुधीर शर्मा पर आरोप लगे किवो अपने भतीजे को बचाने केलिए जांच को प्रभावित कर रहे है।क्योंकि उनका अपना भतीजा रेप कांड शामिल है। इस पर भाजपा नेता कृष्ण कपूर ने मीडिया में कहा कि मामले की सीबीआई जांच हो क्योंकि इसमें मंत्री का नाम आ रहा है। इसके बाद एक के बाद विपक्षी नेताओं ने सुधीर शर्मा पर हमला बोल दिया था। इसके बाद सोशल मीडिया पर खूब हल्ला मचा।
याकिचा कर्ता अनुराग शर्मा वअन्य ने हाईकोर्ट में जनहित याचिका दायर की कि इस मामले में जिन नेताओं व सोशल मीडिया ने धर्मशाला के विधायक जो मंत्री भी है के खिलाफ झूठा प्रचार किया और उनकी छवि खराब की। उनके खिलाफ कार्रवाई की जाए ।
अदालत ने याचिकाकर्ता की याचिका में से उनकी कथ्य को अपनी आर्डर में इस तरह अंकित किया है-:
The perusal of the writ petition does disclose that it is not in the public interest, appears to be for some other reasons, which, prima facie, have been disclosed in paras 3, 3 (a) and 4 of the writ petition. Virtually, the writ petitioners are trying to draw some action against the opponent political leaders or the persons who have allegedly made the false statements against the sitting MLA/Cabinet Minister and his relatives in order to gain political edge.
6. It is apt to reproduce paras 3, 3 (a) and 4 of the writ petition herein:
“3. The facts, as necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition, are that the petitioners apart from being wedded to Indian National Congress and are holding the posts in the said party in District Kangra, are also public spirited persons and have been pursuing public causes at given intervals. With respect to this aspect of the matter, no other and further details are being given; however, in case contradicted by any of the parties, said details will be mentioned. This fact is being stated, more particularly in view of the fact that very very burning issue is sought to be brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court by way of present writ petition, as the particular respondents arrayed as respondents have failed to abide by the dictate of law while handling the situation qua which details are being given here in below and further being office bearers of the opposite party in the State of HP, it failed to check in the public cause in its right perspective, being professed by its leaders and members. The situation owing to said aspect so aggravated that there were agitations and dharnas and respondents will not deny this aspect of the matter that just owing to the hoax created by giving totally false statements in the press and social media, situation boiled down to such an extent that had it not been checked particularly on the requests having been made by the petitioners and like minded persons that there ought to have been constitutional break down in the State of HP.
In view of this only, the present writ petition is being filed to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction as is vested in this Hon’ble Court solely for the sake of justice/substantial justice so that in future such like happening may not be there at least in the State of HP which is particularly a clam loving State.
3(a) That present is not an adversary litigation but the writ petition is being filed solely in the public interest and petitioners humbly submit that there may not be any other glaring situation as was arose in District Kangra at Dharamshala and to control such situation in public interest. Therefore, respondents are liable to evolve procedure, to follow and get the same followed.
4. That there is yet another aspect owing to which the petitioners are invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court as a few miscreants, with the help of leaders of opposite parties, took advantage of the situation and left no stone unturned to malign the image of sitting MLA from Dharamshala and a Cabinet Minister.
this is not expected at all from the leaders who have remained themselves as Ministers. In this view of the matter only, respondent No. 6 is added as party respondent. This Hon’ble Court is humbly requested to issue suitable directions to all the political parties, particularly respondent No. 6 to guide its members and leaders not to react unnecessarily and without confirming the news. The leaders may be having political rivalry, but that cannot be allowed to be used for personal cause and in any manner which amounts to hitting another person below the belt.
This is what has been done by the leaders of respondent No. 6 while issuing statements in the press with respect to the incident in question.”
हाईकोर्ट ने आगे यूं टिप्पणी की है-:
as to how a petition can be treated as public interest litigation and held that it is a weapon to be used with great care, with all circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases and it is the duty of the Court to lift the veil and see what is behind it.
“While it is the duty of this Court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of this Court to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior Court preventing other genuine violation of fundamental rights being considered by the Court.”
आखिर में अदालत ने याचिका को ये कह कर खारिज कर दिया है-:
. Keeping in view the averments contained in the writ petition read with the origin of public interest litigation, development of law and the test laid down by the Apex Court, it can be safely held that the writ petition merits to be dismissed in limine for the reason that entire litigation appears to be politically motivated, which is admitted by the writ petitioners in the writ petition, as discussed hereinabove.
20. Having glance of the above discussions, this writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed in limine. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
Chief Justice
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
July 07, 2015
