Search on net with key words on this subject did not result in any news. Could you provide link or more info: which HC? Judge bench? Which nuclear plant? Without details it is wrong to comment but the general principles say: Judges having such a view (How can an unlearned learn?) is serious. Does the judge expect an ignorant to remain that way for life? Or does he consider only formal school learning as the only way to learn? Can someone (who saw this judge shitting in his underwear when he was a child) ask how he became a judge later? But on the hand, if the petitioner had not made enough homework (getting facts from the government under RTI or otherwise, getting expert opinions, representing them to the authorities to get the doubts cleared, exploring and exhausting all other remedies before approaching HC) and claimed something that clearly contradicts what the scientists, project report and the proven facts say, then the judge is right in rejecting the PIL on the basis of intentions. Rajendra Soter wrote: The shocking remarks of a High court in a PIL filed over setting up of a nuclear reactor need to be protested widely. ""This is a frivolous petition ," said a division bench and asked the petitioner, how a housewife got to know of the details of the nuclear plant. The petitioner, Rani Diwekar , said that she had got the information on the subject from the internet. "Don't rely on everything that you see on the internet," said the judges, adding that they would not hesitate to impose "exemplary costs" on such frivolous petitions. " Firstly this very question as to 'how a housewife got to know the details of a nuclear plant' is definitely demeaning to a woman in this modern age where anyone can have access to education, technology and justice. Cannot a modern housewife have the ability to research and gather information on economic, social and political affairs in her country? Secondly, to say 'don't rely on everything that you see on the internet' is again contradictory. Is everything that is reported in the newspapers factual? If not, then how do courts consider suo moto PILs based on press reports? Thirdly, this courage of abusing litigants and ascribing motives, particularly when it comes to soc conceived development projects or government policy, arises from the fact that the people of this country have reposed too much faith in a judicial system wrecked with bias, contradictions and cronism. The people's courts, call them kangaroo courts, banana courts or whatever, are the only way to beat back the repression and oppression of the State and the capitalists. Often, this nation is taken for a ride by some activists who drag anything and everything to court and let it rot there for years thus killing public momentum for obtaining policy change from the State
