LUCKNOW: Junking a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a directive from the court to UP CM Yogi Adityanath to take the oath of office of the CM again in his real name, the Allahabad High Court on Monday imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner.
Petitioner Namaha of Delhi had claimed in the PIL that the UP CM was using different names like ‘Adityanath’, ‘Yogi Adityanath’ etc.
The petitioner claimed in his petition that the UP CM had been taking oath of office in different names. After winning in 2004, 2009 and 2014 Lok Sabha elections, he took oath of Lok Sabha as Adityanath and after that he has been adding Yogi after Adityanath while taking the oath of office and secrecy, said the PIL.
The petition also submitted that the UP CM was using ‘Yogi’ with his name Adityanath in the same way as doctors and engineers put the title ahead of their name.
“So the UP CM should be barred from using ‘Yogi’ in his name,” said the petitioner. However, hearing the PIL, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Piyush Agrawal dismissed the petition calling it a waste of the court’s time and slapped a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner which the court directed to be submitted within six months.
The court further said that the amount of penalty would be donated to Divyang Kendra (Centre for differently abled).
The petitioner had claimed that various names of CM Yogi Adityanath were being used in various forums, including digital, causing confusion among the public at large. Therefore, the state government must be directed to use only one name of
the CM on digital as well as non-digital forums.
Additional advocate general (AAG) Manish Goel, appearing for the state government, opposed the plea and argued that the petition was not maintainable as the CM had been made party in the individual capacity in the petition and a PIL could
not be filed against an individual. In addition to it, the petitioner had not disclosed his credentials as per the High Court rules.
Further, the AAG submitted that the petitioner apparently had not filed the petition for the benefit of the public at large but only to gain publicity. However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had not filed the petition with any ulterior motive and the same was filed for the benefit of the public at large.