The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Dr. Alok Tripathi as Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, holding that the petitioner had suppressed material information about criminal cases and approached the Court with an apparent personal motive. The Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.
Background
The petition was filed by Vijay Singh Sheron, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 11(1) of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012, along with the advertisement dated December 12, 2023, concerning the appointment of the University's Vice-Chancellor.
The petitioner argued that the provision did not prescribe specific eligibility qualifications and failed to ensure compliance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. He also questioned Dr. Alok Tripathi's eligibility, claiming that he did not possess the required academic qualifications and ten years of professorial or equivalent experience.
The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that it was not filed in genuine public interest and that the petitioner had failed to disclose several criminal cases and other proceedings against him, as required under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.
The Bench examined the circumstances surrounding the litigation and noted that Dr. Tripathi had initially been appointed Vice-Chancellor in 2020 under the same rules. However, the petitioner had not challenged that appointment and approached the Court only in 2024, after criminal complaints and disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him.
The Court observed that this sequence of events raised serious questions about the petitioner's intentions.
The Bench further emphasised the mandatory disclosure requirements under Rule 385-F, particularly the obligation to provide details of civil, revenue and criminal proceedings involving a person filing a PIL.
The Court observed:
"the primary object and purpose of public interest litigation is to ensure access to justice for the weaker, disadvantaged and marginalized sections of society, to protect their fundamental rights and to secure redressal of genuine public wrongs or injuries arising from violations of statutory or constitutional provisions."
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, reiterating that PIL jurisdiction must not become a means of pursuing private disputes.
It further held that the petitioner's failure to disclose the relevant proceedings amounted to material suppression of facts and affected his entitlement to invoke the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that it was not examining the substantive challenge to Section 11(1) of the 2012 Act because of the petitioner's conduct and the non-disclosure of material information. The constitutional validity of the provision was therefore left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
The Court concluded:
"Consequently, the present writ petition, instituted in the nature of public interest litigation and it has been filed with ulterior motive so as to settle the personal score with the respondent no.6. The same is therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)."
The petitioner was directed to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
Case Details
- Case Title: Vijay Singh Sheron v. State of Rajasthan & Others
- Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1153/2024
- Judges: Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma
- Decision Date: 3 November 2026
