The Supreme Court ruled that too many extraneous parties had been added to the PIL at a plea hearing. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court (SC) rejected a petition that contested an interim ruling from the Uttarakhand High Court (HC), claiming that there were too many respondents and that the court might omit unneeded parties from the public interest litigation (PIL).
The investigation was started by the Speaker of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, which is the subject of the petition before the High Court. The investigation relates to the suspected “illegal” appointment of 396 employees and officers in the Legislative Assembly by the former administration and officers between 2001 and 2022. On January 10, the High Court had issued an order that, while issuing a notice, removed a few respondents from the case.
The Chief Minister, Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and Members of Parliament (MPs) were among the many respondents who the court expressed its worries about during the hearing, saying that such a huge number of respondents was not allowed. The court also made it clear that it is up to it to decide who receives notices in PIL cases.
The court reacted by saying that although the petitioner might ask for anything, it didn’t guarantee that their request would be granted when the petitioner’s lawyer on record, Ankur Yadav, claimed that these parties were implicated in the illegal appointment case.
The SC further pointed out that the High Court had given notice to the two respondents who were concerned in the case but had not rejected the plea. The court decided not to consider the petition for these grounds. After hearing the petitioner’s attorney, it indicated that it was not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution and that the petition was therefore dismissed.
According to the complaint, some appointments in the Vidhan Sabha were made through direct recruitment, which is against accepted norms and protocols. These infractions included failing to place ads for ad hoc appointments and failing to hold competitions. The argument was supported by the committee of experts’ findings.
Written By- Aditya Singh, College Name- Army Law College, Pune,Semester- 2nd Semester Student an intern under Legal Vidhya
