Allahabad HC Dismisses PIL on Kanwar Yatra Shop Closures, Labels It a “Publicity Interest Litigation”
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL alleging non-vegetarian shop-keepers were being coerced to shut during Kanwar Yatra, finding the petition mala fide and designed for publicity rather than genuine public interest.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, dismissed PIL No. 1945 of 2026 on 14 August 2026. The petitioner, an advocate named Nasir Farooq, had approached the court claiming that shop-keepers dealing in non-vegetarian food in District Amroha were being compelled or harassed to close their establishments between 30 July 2026 and 24 August 2026 during the Kanwar Yatra period. The bench found the petition devoid of substance, held it to be apparently mala fide, and characterised it as a “Publicity Interest Litigation” rather than a genuine Public Interest Litigation.
The Dispute Before the Court
Nasir Farooq, an advocate, filed the PIL alleging that blank notices purportedly signed by the Incharge Inspector of Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, had been served on non-vegetarian food shop-keepers directing them to close during the Kanwar Yatra. Copies of these notices were annexed to the petition as Annexure-1.
The court observed that the notices attached were blank, and nowhere in the petition were the names of the shop-keepers on whom the notices were alleged to have been served disclosed. The bench noted that if notices had in fact been served and enforced, the affected shop-keepers themselves would have the cause to question their validity — not a third-party advocate filing a PIL on their behalf.
Why the Bench Found the Petition Mala Fide
The court's finding of mala fides rested on a specific contradiction within the petitioner's own conduct. While Nasir Farooq was seeking to project the case of non-vegetarian shop-keepers being forced to close, the same petitioner had also made representations seeking the closing down of liquor shops along the Kanwar Yatra route.
The bench held that this inconsistency betrayed an intention to misuse the PIL jurisdiction, for reasons best known to the petitioner. Filing a PIL to protect one category of shop-keepers from closure while simultaneously agitating for the closure of another category of shops on the same route struck the bench as a telling internal contradiction.
The petition also lacked the material support that a PIL requires. No actual cause was pleaded on behalf of identifiable, affected persons, and no concrete material was placed before the court to substantiate the allegations of harassment or compulsion.
The Court on PIL Misuse and Publicity-Seeking
The bench went beyond dismissal of this specific petition to address a broader pattern. It observed that filing petitions of the present nature — without pleading an actual cause, without producing supporting material, and then publicising the mere fact of having filed such petitions — amounts to what the court termed “Publicity Interest Litigations” rather than Public Interest Litigations.
The court held that such conduct cannot be countenanced. The observation places the emphasis squarely on the practice of using the filing of a PIL as a platform to generate press coverage, regardless of whether the petition has any substantive merit or genuine affected parties behind it.
The bench did not elaborate on any cost order or further penalty in the digest, but the characterisation of the petition as mala fide and as a publicity exercise constitutes a firm rebuke of the petitioner's approach to PIL jurisdiction.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed PIL No. 1945 of 2026 on 14 August 2026, finding it without substance. The petition filed by advocate Nasir Farooq, represented by counsel Anita Singh and Mustaqeem Ahmad, was dismissed in its entirety. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Ramanand Pandey and the Additional Chief Standing Counsel.