On January 23, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal of a temple located on Yashwant Niwas Road in Indore. The court's stance was unequivocal—the petitioner had no compelling reason or justification for his demand. In a firm rebuke, the court imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the litigant, who identified himself as a journalist. The bench asserted that the petitioner had a "vested interest" in the property in question, which likely motivated his plea for the temple’s removal.

In a detailed ruling, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the removal of this temple served the public interest. The judges observed that there was no evidence of broader concern over illegal religious structures. Instead, the petitioner seemed fixated on targeting this one temple. Consequently, the court found his claims unconvincing and rejected the request to review its previous dismissal of his PIL.

Furthermore, the bench pointed out that if the petitioner had genuine concerns about illegal constructions of religious sites, he should have broadened his challenge to include all unauthorized religious structures—whether they were on government land or built without proper permissions. The court emphasized that selective targeting of a single religious site undermined the credibility of his public interest claim.

The court explicitly stated:
"The petitioner is not a resident of nearby places of Yashwant Niwas. He has not disclosed as to why he is only targeting one temple at Yashwant Niwas Road in public interest. Being a Journalist, he ought to have conducted a survey in Indore or Madhya Pradesh about all the illegal constructions before filing this PIL. Therefore, such a petition cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation when the petitioner is interested only in one temple. It appears that he has some vested interest in it. We do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Division Bench to exercise the power of review."

The court’s reasoning highlighted that the petitioner, as a journalist, bore a higher responsibility to conduct thorough research before bringing such a case to court. His failure to undertake a comprehensive survey of illegal religious constructions across Indore or the broader state of Madhya Pradesh weakened the legitimacy of his PIL.

This case was not the first time the petitioner faced judicial scrutiny. An earlier PIL filed by him had already been dismissed by the High Court. At that time, the court had remarked that the petitioner could not be recognized as a social worker with standing to file a public interest petition. The court’s stance remained consistent, reinforcing the principle that public interest litigation must be driven by genuine social concerns, not personal motives or selective grievances.

While reviewing the case details, the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted that the petitioner, who identified himself as a journalist, had targeted the removal of a specific temple located on Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore. His petition included 25 respondents, of which 20 were associated with the Manmohan Parshavanath Jain Shwetamber Mandir Evam Guru Mandir Trust, either as its president or trustees. Despite such a detailed list of respondents, the petitioner failed to provide a strong justification for why he sought the removal of only this particular temple.

The court questioned the petitioner's selective focus, emphasizing that a genuine concern about illegal religious constructions would require a more comprehensive approach. In its observation, the court asserted, “If petitioner is aggrieved by illegal construction of religious places, then he ought to have challenged all the religious structures constructed either on government land or without permission.” The court emphasized that public interest demands consistency and impartiality. It pointed out that focusing on one site alone hinted at personal motives rather than a broader public cause.

After thoroughly examining the petition, the court found no error in the previously dismissed order. The division bench categorically noted that the case had already been decided on its merits. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any "error apparent on the face of the record" that would justify a review. Consequently, the court not only upheld its earlier ruling but also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner for filing a meritless review petition.

Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh further reiterated their concerns regarding the petitioner's lack of impartiality. The bench observed, “The petitioner is not a resident of nearby places of Yashwant Niwas. He has not disclosed as to why he is only targeting one temple at Yashwant Niwas Road in public interest. Being a Journalist, he ought to have conducted a survey in Indore or Madhya Pradesh about all the illegal constructions before filing this PIL. Therefore, such a petition cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation when the petitioner is interested only in one temple. It appears that he has some vested interest in it. We do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by Division Bench to exercise the power of review.”

The review petition stemmed from the petitioner's dissatisfaction with the dismissal of his initial Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which sought the removal of the temple built in 2012 on Yashwant Niwas Road. However, the division bench reaffirmed its stance, referencing a precedent set by the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v/s Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others (2010). In that case, the Supreme Court had clarified the criteria for filing PILs, emphasizing that petitioners should be social workers with a genuine interest in public welfare. The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench applied this reasoning, determining that the petitioner did not qualify as a social worker capable of invoking the public interest writ.

Moreover, the court pointed out that disputes involving encroachments require a full examination of evidence, which cannot be resolved merely through a writ petition. As a result, the High Court deemed the petitioner’s claims unfit for PIL proceedings and dismissed the case based on established legal principles.

The petitioner, in his review petition, argued that the court had incorrectly applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v/s Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others (2010). He claimed that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had misinterpreted the guidelines established by the Apex Court in that judgment. Despite his assertions, the court firmly disagreed with his stance.

The court emphasized that the petitioner, who presented himself as a journalist, had filed the writ petition concerning only one religious structure—the temple located at Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore. The judges pointed out that such a narrowly targeted plea undermined the principles of public interest litigation. The petitioner had included 25 respondents, with respondents 6 to 25 being members of the Manmohan Parshavanath Jain Shwetamber Mandir Evam Guru Mandir Trust, yet failed to present evidence of any broader concern for unauthorized religious constructions.

In its observations, the court reiterated, "If petitioner is aggrieved by illegal construction of religious places, then he ought to have challenged all the religious structures constructed either on government land or without permission." The selective nature of the petitioner's complaint cast doubt on his motives and suggested a vested interest in the removal of this specific temple rather than a genuine public concern.

The court further referred to another landmark judgment by the Supreme Court in Haridas Das v/s Usha Rani Bank (Smt.) & Others (2006) to support its decision. In this case, the Supreme Court had clarified that a review petition is not an opportunity to reargue a case but is limited to correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. Applying this principle, the division bench noted that no such error existed in the petitioner’s case. The court asserted that the petitioner was "under the guise of review... challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review." This misuse of the review mechanism further weakened the credibility of his petition.

The court maintained that the earlier decision had been reached after a thorough examination of the facts and legal merits. It reiterated, “In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits.” Based on this reasoning, the judges dismissed the review petition.

In addition to dismissing the plea, the court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner. The amount was directed to be deposited in the account of the Legal Aid Services Authority, Indore, as a measure to discourage the misuse of judicial resources for personal or frivolous purposes.

The case was titled Hemant Malviya Versus The State of M.P. and Others, filed under Review Petition No. 1081 of 2024.