The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed an unusual courtroom exchange when Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant questioned a petitioner over a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that the court suspected was not drafted by him but filed on behalf of someone else.
The petition, relating to the PM CARES Fund, came up before a bench comprising the CJI and justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Within minutes of the hearing beginning, the court began probing whether the petitioner – a hosiery trader from Ludhiana who said he had studied only up to Class 12 — had actually authored the legal document placed before the court.
At the outset, CJI Kant asked Rajnish Sidhu about his educational qualifications and profession. Sidhu said he was a 12th passout and worked as a trader, dealing in hosiery goods. The court then asked about his income and tax payments, to which he responded that he had paid around ₹5.25 lakh in income tax in the previous year.
When asked whether he had previously filed any case in any high court, Sidhu said this was his first attempt at litigation and that he had approached the Supreme Court directly.
“Bada bahaduri ka kaam kiya, seedha Ludhiana se chalke aa gaye! (very brave of you…you have come straight from Ludhiana to the Supreme Court),” the CJI remarked, drawing laughter in the courtroom.
However, the bench soon expressed doubts about whether the petitioner had actually drafted the plea himself. Observing that the petition contained complex legal language and constitutional terminology, the CJI said the court was not convinced.
“Main aapka ek exam karwaunga yahan (I will ask you to take an exam in English here),” the CJI told the petitioner, adding that if he managed even 30% in that test, the court might believe that he had drafted the petition.
The bench then asked him to honestly disclose who had prepared the document. Otherwise, the court warned that it might have to look into other details, including attaching his income tax records.
Sidhu maintained that the petition was his own work and even offered to show his mobile phone to the court. He said that the document had initially been typed by a typist named “Mr Das”.
The explanation did little to satisfy the bench. At one stage, the CJI asked Sidhu to explain the phrase “fiduciary risk of corporate donors,” which appeared in the petition. Sidhu was unable to explain the term.
At this, the CJI remarked: “Sidhu sahab, yeh toh aapne kagaz par likh rakha hai. Kisi vakil ne aapko likh ke diya hai,” suggesting that the petitioner appeared to be reading from something prepared by a lawyer.
The bench warned that if he did not disclose who had drafted the petition, the court might direct the Punjab Vigilance Bureau to examine the matter.
Sidhu insisted that he had not taken the help of any lawyer, adding that he did not have faith in advocates though he had some lawyer friends. Eventually, he said that he had drafted the petition himself with the help of “three or four AI tools” because he could not afford to hire a lawyer.
He added that the typist had asked for ₹1,000 per hour for the work, which he could not pay. Instead, he said he had gifted the typist four jackets.
After the exchange, the bench dismissed the petition, criticising the manner in which the PIL had been filed.
In its order, the court said the petitioner had filed the plea “without any sense of responsibility” and had made “vague, wild, frivolous and scandalous allegations”.
The bench recorded that during the interaction, it found that the petitioner was a small trader educated up to the 10+2 level from a school in Ludhiana, and that the language and constitutional arguments in the petition could not plausibly have been authored by him.
“The tone and manner, expressions, terminology, and the so-called ‘constitutional principle’ cannot be the brainchild of the petitioner,” the bench said.
While nixing the plea, the CJI advised Sidhu to focus on his business instead of filing such cases.
“Jaao Ludhiana mein do-teen aur sweater becho (Go, sell two or three more sweaters in Ludhiana),” remarked Justice Kant, adding that those who specialise in filing such petitions might ultimately harm him by exposing him to costs imposed by the court.
The episode underscored the Supreme Court’s growing frustration with motivated or proxy PILs that consume judicial time. Over the years, the court has repeatedly cautioned litigants that the extraordinary jurisdiction of public interest litigation cannot be used as a platform for publicity, vendetta, or indirect litigation on behalf of hidden interests.