Crusader’s Jurisprudence / The Revival of Ray LXXIII

High Court’s conduct in not furnishing reasons is strongly deprecated. Reliance on Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2020 SC 5758; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1145 and Sudipta Chakrobarty v. Ranaghat S.D. Hospital, AIR 2021 SC 3344 is warranted.


There is no doubt, Public Interest Litigation is meant to be entertained for bona fide causes and not to aid either misguided individuals in their quest for publicity or for wreaking vendetta. Court had emphasized, need to keep out ‘busybodies’, who have no interest in matters of public interest, in Jasbhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 3 SCR 58 and had stated, about such individuals, “they masquerade as crusaders for justice.

Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Shaikh Ansar Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra, [Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2021].


We apply law laid down in Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2020 SC 5758 and in earlier decisions.

Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh, [Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2022] decided on 19.04.2022.


No reason, suffers vice of arbitrariness. Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna, (2009) 1 SCC 678 reiterated same position as was observed in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In serious cases like murder, reasons justifying grant of bail are necessary.

Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, [Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2022] decided on 19.04.2022.