# Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 460
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-10-10
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hindu-personal-law-board-through-asok-pande-v-union-of-india-ors-43653
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

4 All. Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande Vs Union Of India & Ors.
461
The sesquicentennial celebrations of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad were inaugurated on 13 March

## Text

460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completely satisfied, it cannot grant a decree for divorce by mutual consent. Otherwise, in our view,
the expression "divorce by mutual consent" would be otiose.

14. In Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, (2011) 5 SCC 234, it has also been held
that the power under Article 142 of the Constitution is plenipotentiary. However, it is an
extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution with implicit trust and faith and, therefore,
extraordinary care and caution has to be observed while exercising this jurisdiction. Even if the
chances are infinitesimal for the marriage to survive, it is not for this Court to use its power under
Article 142 to dissolve the marriage as having broken down irretrievably.

15. In the present case, no petition under Section 13-B of the Act has been filed. The
petitioner wants for a decree in divorce suit under Section 13 of the Act, in view of compromise
dated 10.10.2014, as this compromise would operate as estoppel against the respondents. Rule of
estoppel is a rule of evidence. There can be no estoppel against statute. Supreme Court in State of
Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 545, held that it is now well
known, the rule of estoppel has no application where contention as regards a constitutional
provision or a statute is raised.. Section 13-B itself gives liberty for second thought to the parties.
The consent must continue during the interregnum period and after this period the parties should
again confirm their consent before the Court. As held by Supreme Court in various cases cited
above, the parties can withdraw their consent during this period. As such Rule of estoppel has no
application in a petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

16. In view of aforesaid discussions, this petition has no merit and is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc Bench No.- 8216 Of 2016

Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asok Pande (In person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
CSC, ASG, Abhinav Trivedi, U N Misra.
4 All. Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande Vs Union Of India & Ors.
461
The sesquicentennial celebrations of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad were inaugurated on 13 March
2016. The new building of the High Court at Lucknow was inaugurated on 19 March 2016. A programme was
organized at Lucknow to mark the sesquicentennial celebrations, on 14 April 2016. The programme at
Lucknow received the wholehearted cooperation of the members of the Bar and Oudh Bar Association. The
programme was organized after taking into confidence the learned President, General Secretary and the
members of the Managing Committee of Oudh Bar Association. It has received uniformly their unstinted
support and cooperation. Indeed, both the Bench and the Bar are the two pillars upon which the
administration of justice stands.

The petition was presented as a public interest litigation for seeking a direction to the Union of India and the
Allahabad High Court not to hold the sesquicentennial celebrations primarily on the ground that the
completion of 150 years was founded on an erroneous assumption and even otherwise, amounted to
celebrating "the subservient legacy of the British Rule" as the petitioner described it in those proceedings.

"(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to order an enquiry
that under what circumstances and under what conspiracy the High Court function started with Sufi songs of
Allah-hu, Allah-hu and in the falahar room, non-veg items were kept and to take action accordingly

 (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to ban the cooking and serving of veg and nonveg items for dinner together in the same venue and by the same caterers in all public functions and for
public dinner/lunch at public expenses

 (c) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to evolve a policy not to permit praising of
religious symbols and shrines of any particular religion in the name of Sufi gayan."

During the course of the hearing of the petition, an intervention application has been filed by a member of the
Bar, Shri Saurabh Shankar Srivastava. In the interests of justice, we permit the learned member of the Bar to
intervene in these proceedings.

The petitioner is habituated to instituting petitions either in his own name or in the name of the body through
which the present petition has been filed. We are affirmatively of the view that repeated recourse to the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is initiated merely as a means of publicity and
without any supervening cause or justification based on public interest.The criminal contempt proceedings
against the petitioner shall be placed before the appropriate Bench according to the roster of work.The
petition shall stand dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs 25,000/- which shall be payable to the U P State
Legal Services Authority.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:(Asok Pande Vs N K Mehrotra5), Ashok Pandey, Advocate Vs Satish Chandra Mishra6,
Kishore Samrite Vs State of Uttar Pradesh9, Dr Nutan Thakur Vs Union of India11.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. The sesquicentennial celebrations of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad were
inaugurated on 13 March 2016. The new building of the High Court at Lucknow was inaugurated
on 19 March 2016. A programme was organized at Lucknow to mark the sesquicentennial
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
celebrations, on 14 April 2016. The programme at Lucknow received the wholehearted cooperation
of the members of the Bar and Oudh Bar Association. The programme was organized after taking
into confidence the learned President, General Secretary and the members of the Managing
Committee of Oudh Bar Association. It has received uniformly their unstinted support and
cooperation. Indeed, both the Bench and the Bar are the two pillars upon which the administration
of justice stands.

2. In this background, soon after the inauguration of the sesquicentennial celebrations of
the High Court at Allahabad on 13 March 2016, a writ petition was filed by Shri Asok Pande, a
practising Advocate (who is also the petitioner before the Court representing an organization called
the Hindu Personal Law Board). The petition was presented as a public interest litigation for
seeking a direction to the Union of India and the Allahabad High Court not to hold the
sesquicentennial celebrations primarily on the ground that the completion of 150 years was founded
on an erroneous assumption and even otherwise, amounted to celebrating "the subservient legacy
of the British Rule" as the petitioner described it in those proceedings.

3. A Division Bench of this Court considered the writ petition and by a judgment dated 10
March 2016 came to the conclusion that it was lacking in substance. In the concluding
observations, the Division Bench exhorted earnestly all members of the legal fraternity to make the
forthcoming event a memorable success:

"The petition having failed to stand the scrutiny of law in the extraordinary
jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hereby rejected with an earnest request to
all members of the legal fraternity, particularly those who have nurtured the High Court with their
toil and blood including the petitioner, to make the forthcoming events of celebrations a memorable
success notwithstanding their diverse opinions."

4. Having failed in his endeavour to restrain the observance of the event at Allahabad, the
petitioner filed the present proceedings in respect of the cultural programme which was held at the
new campus of the High Court building on 14 April 2016. The reliefs which the petitioner seeks are
in the following terms:

"(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Chief Justice of Allahabad
High Court to order an enquiry that under what circumstances and under what conspiracy the High
Court function started with Sufi songs of Allah-hu, Allah-hu and in the falahar room, non-veg items
were kept and to take action accordingly

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to ban the cooking and
serving of veg and non-veg items for dinner together in the same venue and by the same caterers in
all public functions and for public dinner/lunch at public expenses
4 All. Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande Vs Union Of India & Ors.
463
(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to evolve a policy not
to permit praising of religious symbols and shrines of any particular religion in the name of Sufi
gayan."

5. During the course of the hearing of the petition, an intervention application has been
filed by a member of the Bar, Shri Saurabh Shankar Srivastava. In the interests of justice, we
permit the learned member of the Bar to intervene in these proceedings.

6. At the outset, it must be noted that the cultural programme which was held on 14 April
2016, comprised of events drawn from a cross section representing the diversity of the ethos and
culture of Indian society. The cultural programme included a Sufi recital by Shri Manak Ali, a
singer of repute besides a number of performances by folk artistes drawn from various genres. The
petitioner, as the petition indicates, has a grievance in respect of three aspects. The first grievance is
in regard to the rendering of Sufi music on the occasion. The second grievance which the petitioner
seeks to portray is to the effect that uncooked non-vegetarian food items were stored in the
room/hall in which 'falahar' arrangements were made for those who were observing the Navratri
fast. The third grievance which the petitioner has, is in the nature of a suggestion to the effect that
the service of non-vegetarian food should be prohibited in "any public function held on public
property at public exchequer".

7. Each of the submissions is thoroughly lacking in substance. Firstly, we are disturbed by
the attempt on the part of the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, to impute communal
overtones to what was essentially a cultural event to mark a historic occasion of the High Court.
The cultural programme involved a demonstration of the talent of artistes drawn from a cross
section of society and covered, besides a Sufi music recital, a demonstration of folk art from
various parts of the country including Haryana and West Bengal.

8. The petitioner may have a sensitivity. If the petitioner is sensitive to the rendering of
Sufi music, he was welcome to leave the event. However. We have no manner of doubt that it was
not open to an individual guest on such an occasion to disrupt a programme on the ground of his or
her own inclination or sensitivity. The manner in which the petitioner did so has been spelt out by
the intervenor. If this were to be permitted, no programme can be completed and there is a danger
that a marginal element may disrupt an event at which an overwhelmingly large part of the
audience drawn from the Bar and Bench is watching the performance with a sense of appreciation
and equanimity. The intervenor in these proceedings has, in his intervention application,
highlighted the manner in which Shri Asok Pande attempted to disrupt the sesquicentennial
celebrations on 14 April 2016 by inciting the members of the Bar, though he had failed in his
attempt to stall the programme in the public interest litigation which had been dismissed by the
Division Bench on 10 March 2016.

9. We also find no merit in the second grievance that non-vegetarian food was stored in the
hall on the evening of 14 April 2016. As a matter of fact, the dinner which was held on 14 April
2016 was an event at which only vegetarian food was served to the members of the Bar, employees,
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Judges of this Court as well as former Judges who were invited to participate in the event. The
contention that non-vegetarian food has been served is, thus, nothing but a desperate attempt to
disturb the tranquility and functioning of the Court.

10. Thirdly, we find no merit, as a matter of principle, in the contention that only
vegetarian food should be served at public events involving the public exchequer. The petitioner
himself may be a vegetarian. Nobody compels him to desist from his own preferences. However, it
is not open to any individual to foist his personal preferences in regard to food upon others. Food
preferences of an individual cannot determine the nature of arrangements which are made in public
events of this nature. If any individual considers it inappropriate to participate in a programme, he
is at liberty to desist from doing so. However, no one can dictate that food of only a particular
nature should be served on such an occasion.

11. Having found no substance in the petition, we find it necessary to dwell on an aspect of
the matter of which we have placed Shri Asok Pande on notice immediately after the petition was
called out. We did so in the hope that better sense would prevail. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ
petition, the petitioner has made the following averments against a sitting Judge of this Court:

"9. That it appears that this 'Harkat' to hurt the sentiments of Hindus was planned
by the Chairman of the organizing committee, Sri Shabibul Hasnain and his other religious men in
the High Court administration to give the befitting reply to the Governor Sri Ram Naik as during
the day session, in the presence of Sri Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India, Sri Ram Naik did
Ram Katha and congratulated the persons gathered there on the eve of the Navratri and Ram
Navami.

10. That it appears that only to give befitting reply to the Governor and other
Hindus, the evening culture program, which should have been started with Saraswati Vandana and
Vande Mataram started with Allah-hu, Allah-hu, in the name of so-called Sufi gayan."

12. We find prima facie that the manner in which the petition has been drafted and an effort
has been made to target the Chairperson of the Organizing Committee at Lucknow, who is a sitting
Judge of the High Court, is a scandalous attempt to lower the dignity of the Court. The event in
relation to which the allegations have been levelled is intrinsically connected with the High Court
as an institution for the administration of justice. The event was to mark the sesquicentennial of the
High Court as a court of justice under the law. The averments in the petition, including those which
have been extracted above, prima facie, indicate that a conscious and premeditated attempt has
been made to bring the Court and the Judge of the Court into disrepute. This is a calculated attempt
to sow the seed of hatred and to divide the institution on communal lines.

13. Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the expression 'criminal
contempt', inter alia, to mean the publication of any matter or doing of any other act whatsoever
which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court.
4 All. Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande Vs Union Of India & Ors.
465
14. The petitioner is habituated to filing petitions ostensibly styled as public interest
litigation. The present writ petition has not been filed as a public interest litigation but has been
instituted in the form of a miscellaneous writ petition. On numerous occasions, various Courts have
found Shri Asok Pande to have indulged in drafting pleadings which would not give credit to a
member of the legal profession. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a judgment dated
14 April 2011 in a petition instituted by Shri Asok Pande2 to challenge the appointment of the
Governor of the State of Gujarat, observed as follows:

"This petition is a fine specimen of abuse of process of the Court in the name of
Public Interest Litigation. It was expected from a member of a noble profession not to invoke
jurisdiction of the Court in a matter where the position of law is abundantly clear."

15. The Division Bench further observed:

"We are of the view that the petition is not only wholly misconceived, but, we find
that the bonafides of the petitioner in preferring this petition also appears to be doubtful.

We are disturbed to note that a member of a noble profession, a practicing lawyer
has not exercised any restraint even while drafting the petition. We also find that the avements are
quite derogatory and not acceptable at least from the petitioner who is appearing as a Party-inPerson."

16. Shri Asok Pande challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court, before
the Supreme Court by means of a special leave petition3 which was dismissed on 22 March 2012
with costs of Rs 1,00,000/- in addition to costs imposed by the High Court. The said judgment
reads as under:

"After hearing the petitioner in detail, we are of the view that the High Court has
not committed any error whatsoever while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner which is
styled as Public Interest Litigation. We add that the petition filed by the petitioner is not only
frivolous but highly mischievous. Therefore, while affirming the order passed by the High Court,
we dismiss the special leave petition. For wasting precious public time of this Court, we feel that
the petitioner should be mulcted with exemplary costs. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner
shall pay a further sum of Rs. 1 lac, apart from the costs already imposed by the High Court with
the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority in three week's time from today. If for any reason, the
petitioner fails to deposit the costs as directed, the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority shall
initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

Order accordingly."

17. Challenging the said order, Shri Asok Pande filed a review petition4 which was
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 August 2012.
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. Another writ petition which was filed by Shri Asok Pande (Asok Pande Vs N K
Mehrotra5), sought to challenge, inter alia, the appointment of the Lokayukta in which a former
Chief Justice, a retired Judge of this Court and a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court were
impleaded. A Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 31 May 2011 held as follows:

"A reading of entire writ petition only reflects and exposes the own assumption,
personal grouse and personal view of the petitioner regarding the judges and the orders passed by
them and his own interpretation of such orders.:

19. The Division Bench also observed that:

"We are constrained to observe that the manner in which the petition has been
drafted, the language used and the allegations made, which besides being inappropriate, uncalled
for and without any basis, not only reflect the personal grudge of the petitioner, but also show that
he has scant respect for the Court. The Courts cannot be allowed to be maligned for settlement of
personal grievances of a litigant, may be a lawyer. The dignity of the Court and the majesty of law
have to be maintained."

20. In a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Pandey, Advocate Vs
Satish Chandra Mishra6 delivered on 3 March 2003, the Division Bench noted that the PIL which
was instituted by the petitioner was misconceived, ill-advised and untenable and the petitioner
"wants to remain in limelight by way of filing such PILs." The petition was dismissed with costs.

21. Among the petitions which have been instituted by Shri Asok Pande included a petition
seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh7 which
was dismissed with costs, a writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the Governor recalling the
appointment of the Advocate General of the State8 which was dismissed, among various other writ
petitions.

22. The petitioner is habituated to instituting petitions either in his own name or in the
name of the body through which the present petition has been filed. We are affirmatively of the
view that repeated recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is
initiated merely as a means of publicity and without any supervening cause or justification based on
public interest. The time, effort and attention of the Court which should be devoted to dealing with
genuine causes and cases is deflected in the hearing of these petitions which are conducted without
a sense of restraint and are drafted without any concern for the rules of pleadings and without a
sense of responsibility. Proceedings are argued ad nauseam and are reduced to a spectacle of
frivolity.

23. In Kishore Samrite Vs State of Uttar Pradesh9, the Supreme Court has observed as
follows:
4 All. Hindu Personal Law Board Through Asok Pande Vs Union Of India & Ors.
467
"39. Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be
permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to
unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived
and frivolous petitions. (Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran10.)."

24. Having regard to the aforesaid position, we are of the view that the petition is
thoroughly lacking in substance and should be dismissed. However, the matter cannot rest there.
The remedial jurisdiction of the Court may require, in the circumstances which we have narrated
herein above, consideration of two aspects.

25. First and foremost, we direct the issuance of a notice to the petitioner and Shri Asok
Pande to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for committing criminal
contempt under the Contempt of Courts 1971. We clarify that the observations which are contained
in this order on the facts which have led to the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction are only a
prima facie expression of opinion of the Court in regard to the issues which may arise in the course
of the contempt proceedings.

26. The petitioner and Shri Asok Pande shall submit a reply within a period of three weeks
from today.

27. The criminal contempt proceedings shall be placed before the appropriate Bench
according to the roster of work.

28. The second aspect of the matter on which it is necessary to dwell, is the need to ensure
that petitions at the behest of Shri Asok Pande and the organization which has presented these
proceedings, are drafted with a sense of responsibility. We are of the view that before this Court
entertains a petition at the behest of the aforesaid entity and person, a direction should be and is
issued to the Registry to the effect that each petition be accepted for filing only if it is accompanied
by a Demand Draft of Rs 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands Only) drawn on a nationalised
Bank. The Demand Draft shall be drawn in the name of the Senior Registrar of the High Court at
Lucknow. In the event that the Court finds that the petition is a genuine effort to espouse a cause in
public interest, the Demand Draft will be ordered to be returned to the petitioner by the Court.
However, in the event that the petition is found to be a frivolous exercise or an abuse of the
process, the amount shall abide by such orders in regard to the payment of costs as may be passed
by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court was constrained to pass a similar order in Dr Nutan
Thakur Vs Union of India11. While issuing a similar direction, the Court held that it was
necessary "in order to save this Court from Tsunami of writ petitions filed by the petitioner who
appears almost every other day in Court touching matters which hit the headline, treating it as
public interest...". The Court has been informed that the order of the Division Bench dated 11 April
2014 was confirmed upon the dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court.
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29. It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not
wasted in thoroughly frivolous cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual
litigants are increasingly flooding the Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost
every topic under the sun. Many of them are exercises for garnering publicity. Some are intended to
stall public projects, often at the behest of a competitor. This tends to destroy the sanctity of PILs
as a powerful instrument of securing socio-economic justice to the marginalised and
underprivileged. The time of the Court is exhausted in dealing with frivolous cases with no genuine
cause of public concern. This pernicious tendency has to be firmly stopped by providing orders for
anticipatory costs. This is a means of securing an eventual award of costs in the case of a habitual
litigant who, as here, has a track record of misconceived filings. Unless this is done, the Court
would become a helpless spectator to the loss of public time and resources in dealing with
motivated litigation. When lakhs of cases await judicial decision - including those of undertrials
and convicts languishing in jail for years - the Court cannot allow the institution of administering
justice to become a hapless victim of frivolous filings. Parliament, or the State legislature, may
have to step in to legislate on the malady of vexatious litigation. That is a legislative function. In
the meantime, realistic costs must be deployed if the process of the Court is to be protected against
litigious exploitation.

30. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition shall stand dismissed, with costs
quantified at Rs 25,000/- which shall be payable to the U P State Legal Services Authority.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 8288 Of 2016

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vivek Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The domicile certificate which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by an order
dated 26 March 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda, the second
respondent.