The Delhi High Court has thrown down the gauntlet against what it sees as a rising tide of judicial abuse—specifically, the weaponization of court petitions to extort money under the guise of public interest. In a judgment delivered on September 18, 2025, and made public the following Monday, Justice Mini Pushkarna issued a stern warning to those who would misuse the court’s solemn process for personal gain, penalizing a litigant for his suspected ulterior motives.
According to The Economic Times and Devdiscourse, the case centered on Tauqir Alam, a petitioner who had filed a writ against alleged unauthorized construction in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area. Alam, acting under the banner of the NGO Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha, sought to compel authorities to demolish the construction. However, the court found that Alam’s actions were less about upholding the law and more about leveraging the judicial process for extortion.
Justice Pushkarna’s ruling was unequivocal. “This court in a number of petitions has already deprecated the conduct of parties, wherein, writ petitions against unauthorised constructions are filed with the sole motive to extort money. The process of this court is solemn, which is to be resorted to, only for the purposes of seeking justice before this court. However, the solemn process of this court cannot be used by blackmailers for the purposes of extorting money from the persons who are undertaking unauthorised constructions,” she stated in the judgment, as reported by The Economic Times.
The court’s decision to impose a Rs 50,000 penalty on Alam was not made lightly. The judgment underscored a “concerning trend” of unscrupulous litigants exploiting the legal system to blackmail property owners, especially in cases where the petitioner has no genuine stake in the matter. In Alam’s case, the court noted that his residence was approximately two and a half kilometers away from the disputed property, and he had no legal or fundamental rights affected by the alleged unauthorized construction. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Police had already demolished the structure in question, rendering the petition moot.
But the story doesn’t end there. The property owner involved in the case reported receiving extortion calls from Alam through mutual contacts, raising the stakes and prompting the court to take further precautions. Justice Pushkarna ordered that any future petitions filed by Tauqir Alam or the Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha concerning unauthorized construction must include a copy of this order and be brought to the court’s attention immediately. This, the judge hoped, would help curb the practice of filing frivolous or malicious petitions for financial gain.
“Clearly, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner are being affected by the unauthorised construction in the property in question, especially when the petitioner does not even reside in the vicinity of the subject property,” the order observed. The court emphasized that writ petitions regarding unauthorized construction should only be entertained when the petitioner’s own rights—such as access to light, air, ingress, or egress—are being violated.
The judgment, as highlighted by Devdiscourse, reflects a broader commitment by the Delhi High Court to safeguard the integrity of its processes. The court’s message was clear: legal recourse is meant for seeking justice, not for illicit enrichment or coercion. “Such tactics, the court said, misuse the solemn purpose of seeking justice,” Devdiscourse reported, echoing Justice Pushkarna’s concerns about the distortion of the legal system for personal benefit.
For those unfamiliar with the context, unauthorized construction has long been a thorny issue in Delhi and other major Indian cities. Rapid urbanization, a patchwork of regulations, and periodic enforcement drives often create opportunities for both genuine grievances and opportunistic litigation. The courts, caught between upholding the rule of law and preventing misuse of their authority, have sometimes struggled to distinguish between legitimate public interest and self-serving legal maneuvers.
This case, however, offered a textbook example of the latter. The court found that Alam had adopted a modus operandi of filing petitions in the name of his NGO, targeting properties with which he had no direct connection. The judgment warned that this practice—when adopted by individuals with no relation to the property—amounts to “untoward approaches to extort or blackmail persons who are raising unauthorised constructions.”
It’s not just about one man or one NGO, either. The court’s ruling pointed to a “concerning trend” of similar cases, suggesting that the problem may be more widespread than previously acknowledged. By making its order part of the public record and requiring its inclusion in any future filings by Alam or his NGO, the court aimed to set a precedent and deter others from following the same path.
Legal experts and civic activists have long debated how best to balance the need for vigilance against unauthorized construction with the risk of encouraging vexatious litigation. On the one hand, unauthorized building can undermine urban planning, public safety, and the rights of neighbors; on the other, the courts must guard against being used as instruments of harassment or extortion. Justice Pushkarna’s judgment sought to thread this needle by reaffirming the principle that only those whose rights are directly affected should have standing to bring such petitions.
As for the authorities, the case also highlighted the role of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Police in enforcing building codes and responding to complaints. Their prompt action in demolishing the unauthorized structure was noted by the court, but the larger issue of how to prevent misuse of the complaint process remains a challenge.
For now, the Delhi High Court’s message is unmistakable: the judicial process is not a tool for blackmail. By penalizing Alam and setting clear guidelines for future cases, the court hopes to discourage others from attempting similar schemes. Whether this will stem the tide of opportunistic litigation remains to be seen, but the judgment marks a significant step toward preserving the sanctity of the legal system.
In a city where the lines between public interest and personal gain can sometimes blur, the court’s ruling serves as a timely reminder that justice is not for sale—and that those who seek to profit from the courts may find themselves paying a higher price than they bargained for.