ition Civil No 849 of 1987
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Petitioner in person and MSGanesh for the petitioner
442 K Parasaran Attorney General and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This application has been filed by an Advocate of this Court by way of a public interest litigation
It had been listed earlier and learned Attorney General had entered appearance on behalf of the Union of India
We have heard the petition
It has been couched in unsavoury language and the petitioner seems to have made an intentional attempt to indulge in mud slinging against the advocates this Court in particu lar as also other constitutional institutions
Many of the allegations in his writ petition are likely to lower the prestige of this Court as the apex judicial institution
At one place in the writ petition he has alleged Thus the working of the Judges are cocktail based on Western Common Laws and American techniques as such unproductive and out dated according to socio economic conditions of the country
 At one another place the petitioner has stated that This Court has become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government 
Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant have now turned down their faces against it which is a did illusionment for fear that justice is a will of the Wisp Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that this Court is sleeping over the issues like Kumbhkarna  The reading of the writ petition gives the impression that it is clearly intended to denigrate this Court in the esteem of the people of India
We are of the priam facie view that the petition has been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the Court into contempt and the petitioner is therefore prima facie guilty of contempt
The writ petition has been drafted in a careless manner
At several places the pleadings are meaningless
At several other places 443 they are contradictory
The allegations are clumsy and several irrelevant facts have been put into the petition to inflate its size
The petitioner has left out no institution from his attempt of mud slinging
We have a feeling that while drawing up the petition the petitioner has considered himself to be the only blemishless person and everyone else including social institutions to be blame worthy
We are surprised that an advocate practising in this Court with considerable experience has choosen to act in such an irresponsible manner
The writ petition in our opinion therefore deserves to be dismissed
We accordingly dismiss the writ petition
We direct the Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt and issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause in person on 9111987 as to why he may not be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act
At page 41 of his petition the petitioner has stated This is a public interest litigation in the interest of independence of judiciary and social justice   We are of the view that the petition is an act against public interest
The petitioner has certainly over stepped the limit of self restraint so much necessary in a public interest litigation
We direct the Registry not to entertain any application by way of public interest litigation by the petitioner in future


Summary:
The petitioner an advocate filed the application by way of a public interest litigation alleging that the working of the Judges of the apex Court was cocktail based on Western Common Law and American techniques that the Court had become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of Government and that the Court was sleeping over the issues
Dismissing the writ petition  HELD The petitioner is prima facie guilty of contempt
The petition is clearly intended to denigrate the Court in
the esteem of the people of India
The allegations are clumsy
It is an intentional attempt at lowering the prestige of the Court as the apex Judicial Institution
442G D 443A The Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt of court and issue notice to the petitioner
443C The petition is an act against public interest
The petitioner has certainly overstepped the limit of self restraint so much necessary in such litigation
The Registry directed not to entertain any public interest litigation application filed by the petitioner in future
443E