Namaha’s Public Interest Litigation against Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was dismissed by an Allahabad High Court division bench, which also levied a fine of one lakh on the petitioner. Â
The petitioner, who filed public interest litigation against UP’s Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath, was fined one lakh by the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the PIL. While hearing a PIL filed by Namaha, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal issued this order.Â
 In the petition, filed by a person named Namaha, in the public interest, the court asked to order respondent No. 2 to reveal his complete and true name in the public domain, as well as all papers related to it. Further instructions were given to him, including swearing an oath of office and confidentiality under his real name, as well as refraining from using the term “Yogi” as a title in official communications. The petitioner, who appeared in person, alluded to documents on file that showed respondent No 2 (UP CM) had been using several names at different times and in different places. He mentioned a paper in which his name was listed as “Aditya Nath.” There was also a reference to another record in which his name was given as “Adityanath.” In Hindi, it’s the same. It is the CM’s nomination form for election to the 64th Parliamentary Constituency of Gorakhpur, as attested on April 22, 2014.
It is claimed that the petitioner downloaded the stated document from Lok Sabha’s website.Â
However, as stated by counsel for the respondents, the same is a website that is controlled by the Association for Democratic Reforms, some private individuals, or a non-governmental organization. As a result, any information posted there can’t be used against anyone. Â
 
The bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal dismissed the PIL petition, noting that the petitioner, although a politician, chose to hide his name when filing the petition. 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.Â
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. The petitioner also stated that he has filed a writ case with the Supreme Court to correct the name of our country as stated in Article 1 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, he is a public-spirited individual who raises problems of public concern in the courts.Â
 
On the other hand, Manish Goel, Additional Advocate General, opposed the plea and argued that a review of the reliefs sought in the writ petition reveals that they are all directed at respondent No 2, who is impleaded as a private person. As a result, the writ petition will be dismissed. 
 
The Court observed that the petitioner deserves to be burdened with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-in order to deter the filing of similar giddy petitions. As a result, the court ordered him to deposit the money with the Viklang Kendra, Bharadwaj Ashram in Prayagraj, within six weeks.  Â
Edited By: Vanshika Sahu
Published by: Raj Kishor
