The Supreme Court has said that off late, the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions have been increasingly employed as an instrument of blackmail to target infrastructure projects, particularly in Delhi and Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha noted that whenever a PIL is filed targeting a particular property, the High Court is often aware why the party has approached the court.

The court remarked that the PILs could become an instrument of blackmail when it is an issue of an infrastructure project. This actually makes a plank to target such projects.

The court further said that the High Court has actually smelled the rat here. This is happening across in Delhi, Mumbai, etc

The Apex Court, has therefore upheld a Bombay High Court order which imposed fine of Rs one lakh on a society for filing a PIL for motivated reasons without any public interest.

The petitioner in the case Sarthi Seva Sangh had moved the High Court challenging redevelopment of a plot at Worli.

The High Court had directed the petitioner to produce a copy of its Memorandum of Association after the society said that its aim was to promote ecology.

While going through the memorandum, the High Court found that promoting ecology was not the society’s object .

The High Court could make out that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands and dismissed the PIL with Rs one lakh costs.

This promoted the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has agreed with the High Court, stating that the idea of the PIL was to target project and the High Court had sensed.

In such cases of redevelopment projects, another competitor is behind such petitions and they join with other builders, the bench observed.

CJI said that  I have sat across many such cases before the Bombay court.

The Court, therefore, upheld the order of the High Court.

While concluding the top Court said that the cost imposed by the High Court has to be paid. It is a misuse of the judicial time. Cost has to follow the cause

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man accused in a case of blackmailing and extorting from a minor girl.

The petitioner is a co-accused in the case of alleged extortion and blackmailing. The modus operandi of the accused persons was that they would make friends with minor girls through Facebook, then allegedly take their nude pictures and videos for blackmailing and extortion.

In this case, a complaint was registered by the father of a minor girl against one Ruchi Chauhan, who came in contact with his daughter through Facebook. Thereafter, his minor daughter met Ruchi Chauhan with two unknown boys at Saket City Mall and started visiting her house.

According to the complainant, one day Ruchi Chauhan and her mother called his daughter to their flat in Hauz Khas Village where they offered her a cold drink after which she fell unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she was told that her nude videos were made and she was threatened that they will make her nude video viral on Facebook if she did not fulfill their demands. On that pretext, Ruchi Chauhan and her mother extorted a sum Rs 20,000, Rs 30,000 to Rs 40,000 every week.

The complainant said his minor daughter was threatened that in case she does not fulfill their demands, her parents, family members would be killed and a Scooty was also extorted by Ruchi Chauhan and her mother and other boys including Anuj Kumar.

Also Read: US Congress Caucus asks Modi govt to allow peaceful protest with internet access

A single-judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta heard the bail application filed by Anuj Kumar, a co-accused in FIR no. 204/2019 under Sections 384/386/328/506/120B IPC and 12 of POCSO Act registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar.

The Court noted that the present petitioner/accused is also involved in two other cases; one, FIR relating to an offence punishable under Sections 323/341/34 IPC and the other; under Sections 307/324/326/34 IPC at the same police station.

The Court refused to grant bail stating the exact role of the accused is required to be ascertained into the alleged offences of extortion and blackmailing of a minor girl.

Also Read: Chakka Jam Live Updates: Protests hit road traffic in Haryana, Punjab, Jammu

“Considering the fact that proper investigation into the alleged offences of extortion and blackmailing of a minor girl not only by the main accused i.e. Ruchi Chauhan and her mother but, in conspiracy there with the petitioner and the exact role of the petitioner is required to be ascertained, this Court finds no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner,”

said the Court.

A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the unconstitutional practice of  mandatory and forced confessions in Kerala Malankara Orthodox Syrian church involving exploitation of both men and women relying on several newspaper reports wherein priests have sexually exploited women parishioners after forcing them to confess and have also used their confessions to blackmail their spouses/parents.

The petition filed by Mathew T. Mathachan and others have  submitted that

“the Church is forcing the members to mandatorily confess and mandatorily make payment of monies/dues and the said practices indulged in by the church are of public nature, affecting human dignity and liberty of thought and that the believers have been forced to remain meek and quiet out of fear of removal from parish membership, social ostracization etc.”

The petition also highlights sexual exploitation of women and blackmailing women out of their confessions and if the person refuses to confess his part, then that person’s name will be struck off from the parish register and he/she is barred from all the activities of church.

Petitioners are also concerned about the marriage practices as church forces the people to confess before permitting them to marry.

The petition seeks direction  that mandatory confession is violation of right of privacy guaranteed under Article 21 and that men and women should not be compelled to make mandatory confession or payment of monies, restrain parishioners and to direct that no coercive action to be taken by removing parishioners from the said church or excommunicating them or ostracising them in any manner.

Also Read: Calcutta HC asks municipal corporation to formulate clear policy for building public toilets

The petition is listed for hearing on Monday, December 14, 2020 before a bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

Prayagraj (ILNS): The Allahabad High Court has recently expressed its dismay over technology being misused to commit offences, particularly against women. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, having rejected the bail application of a boy who was blackmailing a girl of his school, having threatened her with death, made this observation.

The bench was hearing an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in which a bail was sought in a case filed under Sections 386 and 354A IPC and Section 66-C of Information Technology Act.

According to the FIR the prosecutrix and the accused were both studying in the same school. The allegation is that the accused boy had been sending obscene messages to the prosecutrix. The boy had also hacked the girl’s social media accounts and had sent various obscene and objectionable messages from her Instagram and Snap-Chat accounts to other boys, pretending as if it was she who was sending those messages.

The boy started putting pressure on girl to lodge a case against her own family members. He threatened that if she refused to do so he would kill her brother. He also threatened that if she wanted to see her brother alive she should give him Rs 2 lakhs.

He also threatened her to make viral audio and video recordings of the girl. He did not stop at that. He had threatened that if the information was given to the police her entire family would be killed.

The court held: “There is a rise in crime of this nature in society. Technology is being misused to commit the offence, particularly against women. The accused-applicant is accused of destroying and disrupting a young life. He has been threatening and blackmailing the prosecutrix.”

The court has considered the heinousness of the offence and the involvement of the accused, and refused to grant bail on the basis of not getting any ground to release him, especially when the trial is going on and the examination of prosecutors is still pending.