“What is your locus? Who can set the criminal law in motion? What is your reason for setting the wheels of criminal law in motion?”
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday took strong exception to a petition filed by one Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil replete with “copy pasted pleadings” and without providing any clarity on the locus of the petitioner for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the court.
A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale said that the petition was full of reproductions of extracts from various documents she had relied upon.
“You are a doctorate of law. Please show us some original pleading in your petition. You have only reproduced conversations between the former Commissioner and Home Minster. You are only extracting paragraphs after paragraphs,” Justice Shinde said.
The petition was filed by Patil seeking probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the allegations of malpractices against Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh and former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh.
Justice Shinde asked her to show a single paragraph that she drafted.
“What is your contribution? What is your original pleading? We cannot allow such copy-pasting,” he said.
He further enquired about Patil’s locus to approach the Court and invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“What is your locus? Who can set the criminal law in motion? What is your reason for setting the wheels of criminal law in motion?” Justice Shinde demanded.
We have come to the conclusion that such petitions are only filed for cheap publicity, he added.
Patil stated that the Malabar Hill Police Station failed to register an FIR on her complaint prompting her to approach the Court so as to direct the Police to take cognizance of the written complaint lodged by her.
She also mentioned that she had approached the Supreme Court with an intervention application in the plea filed by Param Bir Singh.
Advocate General (AG) Ashutosh Kumbhakoni intervened and submitted that the complaint was still pending in the police station.
Justice Shinde intervened at this point and asked Kumbhakoni if there were any similar petitions filed or pending in the Court.
“Why not just club the petitions? There won’t be inconsistency in the orders.”
When Kumbhakoni pointed out that Param Bir Singh’s petition was mentioned before the Bench led by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, the Court directed Kumbhakoni to take steps to club the similar petitions.
The Court placed the matter for hearing on Thursday so that the verdict before the Chief’s court can be taken into consideration.