On Monday, the Allahabad High Court denied a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a court order compelling Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to reveal his complete and true identity in the public realm, at a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.
One Namaha filed a PIL in which he stated that CM Yogi Adityanath take the oath of office and secrecy under his true name and stop from using the word “Yogi” in his official communications.
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal dismissed the PIL appeal, noting that the petitioner, although being a politician, chose to hide his identity when filing the petition, ostensibly for some ulterior reason or cheap publicity.
The Court also noted that, despite having indicated his Delhi address in the petition, he claimed to be from Uttar Pradesh during the hearing in an attempt to deceive the Court. Another fact regarding the petitioner was also considered by the Court.
Essentially, the Petitioner claimed that the Election Commission of India had certified him as illiterate; nevertheless, the Court noticed that he pleaded his case in English, was carrying a copy of the Indian Constitution, and could read it very well.
In light of this, the court dismissed the plea, finding the petition to be wholly misconceived, brought with an ulterior motive by a political figure without providing his full credentials and concealing essential information from the court.
Significantly, the Court noted, in order to deter the filing of such frivolous applications, the petitioner ought to be penalised with a cost of Rs 1,00,000/-. As a result, the Court ordered him to deposit the money with the Viklang Kendra, Bharadwaj Ashram in Prayagraj within six weeks.
The Petitioner alleged in his petition that UP CM had used multiple identities at different times and in different places, and that he had spoken his name differently while taking the oath as UP CM.
In this context, the petitioner argued that a directive was required to be granted to him for exposing his true name because more than 25 crore citizens of Uttar Pradesh were waiting for a response.
The Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, on the other hand, argued that a review of the reliefs sought in the writ petition revealed that it sought direction against UP CM, who was impleaded as a private person, and thus that a writ petition would not be maintainable.