Frivolous Petitions Filed Only To Arm Twist Police Officers Ought Not To Be Entertained: Delhi HC
1. Background Context
During the course of investigations, sometimes individuals file petitions in courts—like writ petitions, anticipatory bail applications, or other relief applications—not because they have genuine grievances but to pressure, intimidate, or arm-twist the police.
Such petitions consume judicial and administrative time and interfere with lawful investigations.
Recognizing this, the Delhi High Court has stated that frivolous petitions aimed at influencing police officers or delaying proceedings must be rejected outright.
2. Constitutional & Legal Principles
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Police must perform duties to protect life, maintain law, and prevent crime.
Frivolous petitions that harass or intimidate police violate the smooth functioning of law enforcement, indirectly affecting public safety.
Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Courts are obliged to ensure fairness.
Entertaining petitions that are frivolous or vexatious would misuse judicial resources, undermining the principle of equality (since genuine petitioners may face delays).
Doctrine of Abuse of Process
Filing petitions with malicious intent or to obstruct lawful procedures is an abuse of process.
Courts have inherent powers to dismiss petitions that are frivolous, vexatious, or intended to harass.
3. Judicial Precedents
In Re: Cognizance for Filing Frivolous Petitions (Delhi HC)
The Delhi High Court observed that petitions filed merely to arm-twist police officers or influence ongoing investigations are malicious in nature.
Such petitions cannot be entertained as they misuse judicial machinery.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
The Court emphasized that initiation of proceedings should not be malicious or with ulterior motive.
Relevance: Frivolous petitions intended to intimidate police fall under this principle.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) (Indirect Relevance)
Police cannot be unduly pressured or coerced while performing their duties under Article 21.
Malicious petitions infringe on police independence in law enforcement.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Courts recognized their inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to protect public interest.
Frivolous petitions hampering police investigation fall under abuse of process.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2013)
Court held that vexatious and mala fide petitions are liable to be rejected summarily.
Relevance: Ensures that petitions filed to arm-twist officers do not delay justice.
4. Key Takeaways from Delhi HC’s Observation
Frivolous petitions must not waste judicial time.
Malicious intent matters: If the petition is filed to influence or intimidate police, it is considered vexatious.
Courts have inherent powers to dismiss such petitions at the threshold stage.
Public interest protection: Preventing frivolous petitions ensures smooth functioning of law enforcement and judicial system.
5. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation | Case Law/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of Petition | Genuine grievance vs arm-twisting police | Delhi HC observation |
| Judicial Approach | Frivolous petitions should not be entertained | Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju (2013) |
| Abuse of Process | Malicious intent to obstruct law enforcement | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) |
| Police Independence | Must perform duties without intimidation | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) |
| Constitutional Basis | Article 14 & 21; prevent misuse of process | State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) |
✅ Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court clearly holds that petitions filed merely to harass or arm-twist police officers are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of judicial process. Courts are empowered to dismiss such petitions summarily, ensuring that law enforcement can function without undue interference and judicial time is preserved for genuine cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments