The High Court clarified that the withdrawal of a PIL by the petitioner – when the cause has become infructuous – results in dismissal without adjudication on merits, thus carrying no precedential value and neither affirming nor overruling existing law. This remains binding procedural practice for all similarly situated future matters involving withdrawal of PILs in the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP-PIL/12/2025 of RANJEET SINGH Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA |
| CNR | PHHC010073172025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice), Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value; no decision on merits |
| Type of Law | Procedural – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |
| Questions of Law | Effect of withdrawal of PIL petition as infructuous; whether any judicial precedent or decision on merits is created. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court orally recorded that the petitioners’ cause had become infructuous. Upon counsel’s request, the writ petition was withdrawn and dismissed as having become infructuous. The Court made no pronouncement on the merits of the issues raised and therefore did not create any binding precedent or legal clarification. The interlocutory nature and manner of disposal mean no issue of law has been decided. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioners, initially raising a public interest cause, appeared and, through learned senior counsel, requested withdrawal of the petition on the ground that the cause had become infructuous. The Court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent; no issue of law decided. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other courts; no legal principles laid down. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Withdrawal of a PIL as infructuous does not amount to any pronouncement on merits or create binding precedent.
- Such dismissals do not affirm or overrule existing legal doctrine; the legal landscape remains unaffected.
- Lawyers should avoid citing such dismissals as authority for any proposition of law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court simply recorded the petitioner’s request for withdrawal on the ground that the cause raised had become infructuous.
- The matter was dismissed as infructuous without examination or adjudication on the asserted legal issues.
- No analysis was undertaken regarding the questions of law originally sought to be agitated.
- The Court did not rely on or refer to any precedents, authorities, or statutory interpretation.
- The explicit ratio is that such procedural dismissals do not create legal precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Learned senior counsel, on instructions, submitted that the cause raised had become infructuous.
- Prayed that the present petition may be withdrawn.
Respondent:
No submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioners had filed a public interest litigation against the Bar Council of India and others. On the listed hearing date, their senior counsel, upon instructions, stated that the cause giving rise to the PIL had become infructuous. On this basis, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition, and the Court dismissed it as having become infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted by the Court in this order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissenting or separate concurring opinion. Both Justices concurred in dismissing the petition as infructuous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were set by the Court in this matter.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The Court followed established procedural practice of allowing withdrawal of petitions that have become infructuous, without adjudicating on merits.