Madras High Court Slaps ₹20 Lakh Fine on Litigant for Suppressing Material Facts In PIL, Bars Him from Filing Petitions for A Year
(Judicial Quest News Network)
In a landmark decision on December 4, 2024, the Madras High Court imposed a hefty ₹20 lakh cost on a litigant and barred him from filing any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions for a year. The bench, led by Chief Justice KR Shri Ram and Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamurthy, found that the petitioner, 67-year-old T.H. Rajamohan, had knowingly suppressed crucial facts in his PIL and had misled the court.
Rajamohan had approached the court to challenge a government order issued by the state’s Revenue Department, which permitted the alienation of around 40.97 acres of land. His claim was that nearly 13 acres of this land were part of a reserved forest area, urging the state to update its records and protect the forest land. However, the state government countered Rajamohan’s allegations, casting doubt on his bona fides. The state further submitted that Rajamohan had a history of encroaching on government land.
An advocate commissioner appointed by the court confirmed these claims, revealing that Rajamohan had intentionally withheld this key information. The court also found that Rajamohan had accused a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Gana Sitaram, of using his influence to sell the land to real estate developers. Yet, Rajamohan failed to provide any documentation to substantiate his claims.
The developers and the MLA, represented by Senior Counsels P. Wilson and Satish Parasaran, vehemently refuted the allegations, highlighting the damage caused to their reputations due to media reports following the PIL’s filing. The court agreed with their arguments and decided that Rajamohan’s actions had led to significant harm to their clients’ business interests.
In a strongly-worded order, the court ruled that Rajamohan had either intentionally deceived the court or was being manipulated by external forces. The bench emphasized that regardless of the source, the filing of such baseless petitions with suppressed facts not only misled the court but also caused unwarranted harm to others.
The court also observed discrepancies in Rajamohan’s affidavit, noting irregularities in his personal details, such as age, occupation, and income, further raising suspicion about his credibility. Consequently, the court ordered a penalty of ₹20 lakh, directing that ₹10 lakh be paid to the Vishal Developers, who were falsely accused in the petition, and the remaining ₹10 lakh be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority.
The court’s decision sends a strong message against frivolous and misleading PILs, highlighting the need to ensure that such petitions are filed in good faith and with full disclosure of all material facts. The imposition of a ₹20 lakh fine and the one-year ban from filing PILs without prior permission reflect the court’s commitment to curbing abuse of the judicial process.
