In Brief
This writ petition sought a quo warranto declaration against a respondent or an alternative mandamus preventing their continuation in office, alleging ineligibility and improper recommendations. The petitioners, who had previously lost a special leave petition and review petition, filed this as public interest litigation. The Court held the petition unjusticiable, malicious, and vexatious. A two-judge Bench dismissed it, finding that litigants cannot file PIL merely because they are dissatisfied with prior judicial decisions; they must be personally aggrieved. The Court barred the petitioners from filing future PIL except where personally grieved, warning of contempt liability for deviation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.