New Delhi [India], January 14 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday strongly questioned the bona fides of an NGO while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging illegal construction of a mosque on government green land, observing that the petitioner appeared to be misusing the PIL jurisdiction by repeatedly raising similar issues.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay orally remarked that the regular filing of such petitions by the organisation cast doubt on its intentions.
The Chief Justice observed that society faces numerous serious problems, but the petitioner seemed to selectively highlight only such issues, prompting the court to question whether the petitions were genuinely in the public interest.
The PIL, filed by Save India Foundation, alleged "brazen encroachment" on a six-lane main road and adjoining green land in Village Bahapur.
According to the petitioner, the land was officially acquired in 1960 and transferred to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1963 for an Industrial Housing Scheme, but was later encroached upon through what it termed an illegal religious structure, resulting in traffic congestion and violation of the Master Plan of Delhi.
The NGO further contended that, despite repeated complaints to various authorities, including the Public Works Department, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Kalkaji), the Religious Committee, and the Special Task Force (STF), no effective action was taken to remove the alleged encroachment.
It claimed that authorities kept shifting responsibility and failed to protect valuable government land, leaving the petitioner with no option but to approach the court seeking directions against officials allegedly acting in collusion with the land mafia.
However, during the hearing, the Bench criticised the petitioner's counsel for filing such PILs and cautioned against the misuse of the court's extraordinary jurisdiction.
When the counsel submitted that the foundation was working for the welfare of society, the court deprecated the argument, reiterating that PILs cannot be pursued selectively or mechanically.
Counsel for the respondents also referred to an earlier order of the High Court in which the same organisation had been reprimanded, with observations that it appeared to function on religious lines. Taking note of the submissions and past judicial observations, the court listed the matter for further hearing on January 21.