Mala Fide Public Interest Litigation, Social Media Vilification and Exemplary Costs: A Commentary on Sachin Sisodiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 MPHC-IND 35329

1. Introduction

The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore in Sachin Sisodiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 41584 of 2025, decided on 3 December 2025) is a significant addition to the jurisprudence on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) misuse. A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla (authoring the order) and Hon’ble Shri Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a PIL with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000, finding it to be a “glaring example of abuse of Public Interest Litigation”.

The judgment is notable for three interlinked reasons:

It reaffirms and applies the Supreme Court’s framework on filtering out mala fide or motivated PILs, especially where a particular individual is the sole target.
It underscores that service matters and personal grievances cannot be camouflaged as PIL.
It treats the petitioner’s social media conduct (Facebook posts) as corroborative evidence of a personal vendetta, thereby justifying dismissal with exemplary costs.

The core legal principle emerging is that where a PIL is demonstrably directed at a particular individual, backed by hostile online campaigns and repeated filings after the concerned “victim” has himself approached and then withdrawn his own proceedings, courts will treat such litigation as an abuse of process and will impose heavy, deterrent costs.

2. Factual Background and Procedural History

2.1 Parties and Relief Sought

The petitioner, Sachin Sisodiya, invoked the PIL jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondents included:

The State of Madhya Pradesh and official authorities;
Respondent No. 5 – Saurabh Kushwaha, Reserve Inspector (RI);
Respondent No. 6 – Rahul Chouhan, a Constable posted at Police Station Khargone.

The petitioner sought a direction against the Reserve Inspector (respondent no. 5) for registration of an FIR in Police Station AJK, District Khargone, against Constable Rahul Chouhan (respondent no. 6). In essence, the PIL demanded that a particular police officer be prosecuted criminally.

2.2 Earlier PIL on the Same Incident

The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General Shri Anand Soni, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the PIL, relying on Annexure P/3. That document disclosed that:

For the same incident and similar relief, one Arun had earlier filed a PIL, W.P. No. 34981/2025.
That earlier PIL concerned “justice for one Rahul Chouhan, Constable posted at Police Station Khargone for the incident that took place on 23.08.2025.”
The petitioner in W.P. No. 34981/2025 was represented by Advocate Shri Rakesh Kumar Ahirwar, who is also a counsel for the petitioner in the present PIL, along with Shri Lakhan Bhawre.

The order dated 04.09.2025 in W.P. No. 34981/2025, reproduced in the present judgment, records:

“… he has filed a separate petition on behalf of Rahul Chouhan. Once, the victim himself has approached this Court seeking justice, the present petitioner need not to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of PIL as this issue is related to a citizen who has already approached this Court.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.”

Thus, the earlier PIL was withdrawn specifically on the basis that the alleged victim himself (Rahul Chouhan) had filed his own petition, making a PIL unnecessary.

2.3 The Individual Petition by Rahul Chouhan and Its Withdrawal

Subsequently, Rahul Chouhan himself filed a writ petition, W.P. No. 35388/2025 (the order labels him as respondent no. 5, though he is otherwise respondent no. 6—an apparent typographical slip). That petition was later withdrawn after a compromise.

The order dated 15.10.2025 (Document No. 16345/2025), reproduced in the judgment, records that the Principal Registrar of the High Court:

“… has submitted his report stating that he has identified the petitioner, who has categorically stated that he does not wish to prosecute this petition any further and wants to withdraw the same.

Thus since the petitioner himself is no longer interested in prosecution of the petition and wants to withdraw the same, his prayer is allowed and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

The net position before the Court in the present PIL was therefore:

An earlier PIL on the same incident had been withdrawn because the alleged victim had himself sought judicial redress.
The victim’s own writ petition had thereafter been compromised and formally withdrawn after verification by the Principal Registrar that it was voluntary.

2.4 Social Media Posts and Alleged Personal Vendetta

The State argued that the current PIL was a misuse of the PIL mechanism with an ulterior motive to blackmail or harass a particular police officer, and that repeated petitions were being filed against the same officer.

To substantiate this, the State produced screenshots of Facebook posts, which the Court took on record and reproduced (in Hindi, using strongly derogatory language) against “आरक्षक राहुल चौहान” (Constable Rahul Chouhan). These posts contained:

Threats or taunts to Rahul Chouhan that any transfer would not protect him.
Calls to keep a “shoe garland” ready for him when he went to the High Court.
References to him as a “कुता” (dog) and talk of giving him “इलाज” (treatment/punishment).
Repeated mentions of “कुता कांड खरगोन” (“dog incident Khargone”).

The Bench found this extremely relevant in understanding the petitioner’s animus and motive.

2.5 The Court’s Immediate Concern: Repeat Litigation and Counsel’s Role

In para 5, the Court notes with some concern that:

“It is very surprising that one of the counsel, who had appeared in the earlier Public Interest Litigation i.e. Writ Petition No.34981/2025, apart from the complaint filed this Public Interest Litigation after withdrawing the previous petition.”

Thus, the same advocate who withdrew the earlier PIL on the ground that the victim had himself approached the Court, was now again before the Court in a new PIL about the same matter, despite the victim’s own case having been compromised and withdrawn.

3. Summary of the Judgment

After examining the preliminary objection, the earlier orders, and the Facebook material, and after placing the matter within the framework of established Supreme Court jurisprudence on PIL, the High Court reached the following conclusions:

The present PIL is a glaring example of abuse of Public Interest Litigation.
The litigation appears to be driven by ulterior motives, personal vengeance, and a desire to target a particular police constable, as evidenced by the social media posts and repeat filings.
The criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in State Of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, Chairman & MD, Bhopal v. S.P. Gururaja, and Gurpal Singh v. State Of Punjab for distinguishing genuine PIL from abuse are not satisfied.
Consequently, the PIL is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 are imposed on the petitioner, payable to the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.
These funds are to be kept in a separate account and used for upgrading the Dispensary of the High Court, Indore.
If the petitioner fails to pay within one month, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the concerned Collector, who must also file a compliance report in the Registry.

The writ petition thus “stands dismissed” with costs and enforcement directions.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

4.1.1 State Of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402

The High Court quotes paragraph 181 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Balwant Singh Chaufal, which sets out comprehensive guidelines to preserve the “purity and sanctity” of PIL. Key directions include:

Courts must promote genuine and bona fide PIL and “effectively discourage and curb” PILs filed for extraneous reasons (para 181(1)).
High Courts should frame PIL rules so that genuine PILs are encouraged and those with oblique motives are filtered out (para 181(2)).
Courts should verify the credentials of the petitioner (para 181(3)).
Courts should be prima facie satisfied about the correctness of the contents and ensure that substantial public interest is involved (paras 181(4)-(5)).
Courts must ensure no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind the PIL (para 181(7)).
Petitions filed by “busybodies” for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs (para 181(8)).

The High Court’s decision to impose substantial costs, and its express finding that the present petition is not a bona fide PIL, flow directly from this Supreme Court framework. By invoking Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Bench signals that:

PIL is a structured jurisdiction with gatekeeping standards, not an open-ended forum.
Exemplary costs are not exceptional in cases of abuse; they are a judicially endorsed tool to deter misuse.

4.1.2 Chairman & MD, Bhopal v. S.P. Gururaja and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 576

The judgment relies on this case for the proposition that in PIL matters:

“the conduct of the petitioner … is very crucial and the court should be circumspect in entertaining any challenge at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners.”

The Supreme Court in S.P. Gururaja had warned that the court should be wary when:

The petitioner has no direct concern but appears strongly motivated;
The litigation appears to be an extension of private disputes or vested interests;
The PIL mechanism is sought to be used as a pressure tactic.

In the present case, the High Court finds the petitioner’s conduct suspect for several reasons:

Successive PILs about the same incident, even after the “victim” has personally approached and then withdrawn proceedings.
Representation by the same advocate who earlier withdrew an analogous PIL once the victim filed his own case.
Social media posts that suggest hostility and a desire to publicly shame a particular constable.

This aligns with the caution in S.P. Gururaja that the petitioner’s bona fides are central to the maintainability of a PIL.

4.1.3 Gurpal Singh v. State Of Punjab and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 136

Gurpal Singh is a leading precedent on two points particularly relevant here:

PIL in service matters: The Supreme Court held that PIL cannot be used to challenge service matters and that disputes of individual service grievances are not suitable subjects for PIL jurisdiction.
Targeted PIL against an individual: Where a particular person is the “object and target” of a PIL, the court must carefully examine if it is a front for a private vendetta or mala fide attack.

The High Court quotes this critical passage (emphasis added):

“When a particular person is the object and target of a petition styled as PIL, the court has to be careful to see whether the attack in the guise of public interest is really intended to unleash a private vendetta, personal grouse or some other mala fide object. Since in service matters public interest litigation cannot be filed … Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance…”

In Sachin Sisodiya, the Court sees a clear parallel: the PIL is plainly aimed at a specific constable (Rahul Chouhan), with whom the petitioner (or those aligned with him) appear to have a personal animus, as evidenced by repeated abusive Facebook posts. Thus:

The subject-matter is closely linked with a service matter (allegations against a serving constable and a request to compel criminal action).
The “public interest” façade conceals a strong element of private hostility and retribution.

By relying on Gurpal Singh, the High Court reinforces the principle that PIL cannot be weaponised to wage personal battles against individuals in public service.

4.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

4.2.1 Threshold Issue: Maintainability of the PIL

The Court treats the maintainability of the PIL as the central, threshold issue, even before any substantive allegations could be examined. The reasoning operates in three layers:

Existence and withdrawal of prior proceedings:
- An earlier PIL (W.P. No. 34981/2025) on the same cause was withdrawn because the alleged victim had filed his own petition.
- The victim’s own petition (W.P. No. 35388/2025) was legally compromised and then withdrawn.
This indicates that the directly affected person had chosen not to pursue the matter, undermining any continued claim of public interest in further litigation on the same issue.
Nature of the grievance:
- The grievance relates to alleged misconduct by a specific police constable and a demand for registration of an FIR — which is essentially an individualised dispute, not a systemic or class issue.
- Under Gurpal Singh, such service-related or individual disputes are not ordinarily amenable to PIL.
Absence of bona fide public interest:
- There is no demonstrated “larger public interest, gravity and urgency” that would justify invoking PIL after the victim has settled the matter.
- The material suggests personal hostility, not a pursuit of systemic reform or redressal of generalized public harm.

These factors together justify the Court’s conclusion that the PIL is not maintainable.

4.2.2 The Role of the Petitioner’s Conduct and Counsel’s Conduct

Drawing from S.P. Gururaja, the Court emphasizes that the conduct of the petitioner is “very crucial” in PIL matters. Here, key aspects of conduct are:

The same legal team (or part of it) had:
- First filed a PIL through another petitioner (Arun), then withdrawn it because the victim filed his own writ;
- Then come back with a fresh PIL in the name of Sachin Sisodiya, after the victim’s writ had been compromised and withdrawn.
This creates an inference that the PIL device is being used strategically, rather than as a disinterested attempt to advance public interest.

The Court characterizes such conduct as a “glaring example of abuse of Public Interest Litigation”. This finding acts as the factual foundation for applying the Balwant Singh Chaufal guidelines on curbing PIL abuse.

4.2.3 Social Media Posts as Evidence of Mala Fide Motive

A particularly distinctive feature of this judgment is the Court’s reliance on Facebook post screenshots to discern the petitioner’s motive. The posts:

Publicly ridicule and dehumanize the constable (calling him a dog, etc.).
Threaten that resistance will continue even after his transfer.
Encourage others to “treat” or “deal with” him if seen.
Persistently refer to “कुता कांड खरगोन” as a form of stigma.

Though the Court does not conduct an extended free speech analysis, its evidentiary use of these posts is clear:

They reveal a pattern of targeted, hostile behaviour towards a named individual.
They support the inference that litigation is part of a continuum of personal persecution, not a detached public cause.
This aligns with the Gurpal Singh warning about PILs that target a particular individual under the guise of public interest.

Accordingly, para 9 states that, in light of the judgments cited and the material produced, including the Facebook screenshots, the Court is convinced the PIL is filed with ulterior motive and is not genuine.

4.2.4 Reliance on Supreme Court’s “Gatekeeping” Role in PIL

The Court methodically applies the core elements of the PIL gatekeeping framework:

Verification of credentials and motives (from Balwant Singh Chaufal): The petitioner's background, earlier litigation, and online conduct cast serious doubt on bona fides.
Targeted litigation and private vendetta (from Gurpal Singh): The constable is plainly the main target; the case resembles private vendetta rather than public service.
Unscrupulous petitioners and abuse (from S.P. Gururaja): The sequence of filings and withdrawals revisits the same grievance after settlement, showing disregard for the integrity of the PIL jurisdiction.

On this analysis, the Court finds it must not only dismiss the petition but also actively discourage such misuse.

4.2.5 Imposition of Exemplary Costs and Enforcement Mechanism

Invoking the direction in Balwant Singh Chaufal to impose exemplary costs to deter frivolous or mala fide PILs, the Court orders:

Costs of ₹1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) to be paid by the petitioner.
The amount to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore.
The sum is to be kept in a separate account and used for upgrading the Dispensary of the High Court, Indore.
The amount must be paid within one month.
In case of non-payment, the cost shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the concerned Collector, who must then file a compliance report with the Registry.

This two-step enforcement structure is significant:

It makes the cost order substantively deterrent — the amount is sizeable and earmarked for a public institutional purpose, adding legitimacy to the sanction.
By providing for recovery as arrears of land revenue, the Court invokes a robust statutory recovery mechanism, ensuring that the cost order is not merely symbolic.

4.3 Impact and Broader Implications

4.3.1 PIL Jurisprudence in Madhya Pradesh

This judgment sends a clear message across the State’s legal system:

PIL is a serious remedial mechanism reserved for genuine public causes; using it as a tool for personal grudges will attract serious financial consequences.
High Courts will closely examine:
- Whether alleged victims have filed or withdrawn their own petitions;
- Whether the PIL truly raises a public question or merely pursues an individual grievance by proxy;
- Whether there is evidence, including on social media, of personal vendetta.

The decision reinforces the idea that the High Court’s PIL docket is not a forum for continuation of disputes after compromise or settlement by the directly affected parties.

4.3.2 Guidance to Legal Practitioners

The Court’s express disapproval of the fact that one counsel was involved in both the earlier PIL and the present one — despite the intervening compromise and withdrawal — is a subtle but important signal:

Advocates have a professional responsibility not to lend their names to abusive or mala fide PILs.
Recycling issues through successive PILs after compromise by the real aggrieved party may attract adverse judicial comment and cost orders.
PIL practice must be guided by public spirit, not strategy or pressure tactics.

4.3.3 Use of Social Media Evidence in Evaluating Motive

An important contemporary dimension of this case is the reliance on Facebook posts to judge the petitioner’s motives. While Indian courts have often relied on digital evidence for proving facts, this case highlights:

Courts can and will examine a litigant’s online conduct and speech to assess whether litigation is a good-faith attempt at justice or an extension of harassment.
Publicly abusive, threatening, or defamatory posts against an individual can be corroborative material showing that a PIL targeting that individual is not filed in public interest.
Litigants and activists must be aware that their social media presence is not divorced from their standing in court; campaigns of vilification may undercut a claim of acting in the public interest.

4.3.4 PIL and Service/Disciplinary Matters

By drawing from Gurpal Singh, the judgment also reasserts the settled understanding that:

Service disputes, disciplinary matters, or grievances against individual officers ordinarily do not fall within the scope of PIL.
Attempts to challenge or pressurize public servants through PIL-based criminal direction petitions will be closely scrutinized for misuse.

This helps maintain a balance between accountability and harassment of officials. Genuine systemic issues in policing can still be subject of PIL, but not merely to punish or publicly shame a particular constable where the primary aggrieved person has already compromised.

4.3.5 Institutional Benefit from Costs

The Court’s direction that the exemplary costs be used specifically for the High Court’s dispensary reflects a trend where cost orders:

Serve both a deterrent function (punishing misuse) and
Contribute to a constructive institutional or public purpose (here, upgrading healthcare facilities within the court premises).

This also resonates with the idea advanced in PIL jurisprudence that those who waste judicial time and resources should compensate the system, at least to some degree.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

5.1 Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

In traditional litigation, only a person directly affected by a wrong could approach the court. PIL evolved to allow:

Any public-spirited individual or group to file a petition on behalf of those who are too poor, illiterate, or socially disadvantaged to approach the court.
Litigation on matters affecting large sections of society or involving broad systemic issues (environment, rights of prisoners, bonded labour, etc.).

However, because PIL loosened strict rules of “standing”, it is vulnerable to misuse by:

Busybodies – persons with no real stake but a desire for publicity or nuisance;
People with hidden agendas – for example, attacking rivals or officials under the garb of representing public interest.

The Supreme Court’s guidelines (as in Balwant Singh Chaufal) are meant to ensure PIL remains a tool for public justice, not for private score-settling.

5.2 “Exemplary Costs”

Ordinary costs awarded in litigation are intended to:

Compensate the successful party for expenses incurred.

Exemplary costs, on the other hand, are:

Deliberately high and imposed to set an example and deter similar conduct in the future.
Often used in cases of:
- Frivolous or vexatious litigation, or
- Misuse of special jurisdictions (like PIL).

In this case, ₹1,00,000 is not linked to any specific “loss” suffered by the State or the Court; it is a penal and deterrent measure aimed at discouraging future misuse of the PIL jurisdiction.

5.3 “Arrears of Land Revenue” – Why This Matters

The order that unpaid costs shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue is legally significant:

Arrears of land revenue can be recovered using strong statutory recovery mechanisms, including attachment of property and other coercive steps, under revenue laws.
By using this formula, the Court effectively gives the cost order the same enforceability as a government’s tax or revenue claim, not merely as a civil decree.

This ensures that the cost order is not a “toothless” admonition but a fully enforceable liability.

5.4 Service Matters and PIL

Service matters include issues such as:

Appointments, transfers, suspensions, promotions, and disciplinary proceedings of government employees.

The Supreme Court has consistently held (notably in Gurpal Singh) that:

These are essentially personal disputes between the employee and the State/employer.
PIL cannot be used as an indirect means to challenge or influence these issues.

In Sachin Sisodiya, the claim of public interest is weakened by the fact that the relief sought — direction to register FIR against a specific constable — is intimately tied to his individual service and conduct, not a broader public policy question.

5.5 Role of the Principal Registrar’s Verification

Before Rahul’s own petition (W.P. No. 35388/2025) was allowed to be withdrawn, the Court directed that he appear before the Principal Registrar, a senior judicial officer in the High Court administration. The Registrar:

Identified the petitioner;
Confirmed that the petitioner voluntarily did not want to pursue the petition further.

This procedure:

Ensures that withdrawals are genuine and free from coercion.
Provides a reliable record that the person directly affected consciously abandoned the litigation.

It is this voluntary withdrawal that makes subsequent “proxy” PILs on the same cause appear even more clearly as attempts to keep a settled matter alive for other motives.

6. Conclusion

The judgment in Sachin Sisodiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh stands as a strong reaffirmation of the core discipline of PIL jurisprudence. From the facts and the applied precedents, several key takeaways emerge:

PIL is not a substitute for personal litigation, particularly where the aggrieved individual has already chosen to file — and then compromise or withdraw — his own case.
When a PIL targets an identifiable individual (here, a police constable) and is accompanied by hostile, abusive conduct on social media, courts will treat it with great suspicion, consistent with Gurpal Singh.
Court resources and the PIL jurisdiction cannot be used as instruments of personal vendetta, blackmail, or public shaming.
High Courts, following Balwant Singh Chaufal and S.P. Gururaja, are empowered — and indeed expected — to impose exemplary costs and invoke robust enforcement mechanisms (like recovery as land revenue) to deter frivolous or mala fide PILs.
The conduct of the petitioner, and even digital footprints such as Facebook posts, can legitimately be considered in evaluating whether a PIL is genuinely in the public interest.

In the broader legal context, this judgment contributes to a consistent national trend: courts are determined to protect the integrity of PIL by distinguishing between public-spirited litigation and disguised private warfare. It underscores that while the doors of constitutional courts remain open for genuine public causes, those who seek to exploit PIL for oblique motives will not only find those doors closed, but will also face substantial financial and legal consequences.

Mala Fide Public Interest Litigation, Social Media Vilification and Exemplary Costs: Commentary on Sachin Sisodiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 MPHC-IND 35329)