Delhi court dismisses plea against NPCI, PM, imposes cost of ₹25k

The court said it is apparent that the grievance articulated by the complainant is unfounded as the persons who have been given cash incentives did not purchase lottery tickets

A Delhi court dismissed an application filed by a man against National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI), the Prime Minister of India and other constitutional functionaries, alleging that NPCI announced the draw of a daily lottery, which is banned according to the law.

On Monday, chief metropolitan magistrate Dr Pankaj Sharma imposed a fine of ₹25,000 against the man and said precious judicial time had been wasted by the complainant. (Representational image)

According to the complaint, NPCI selected 15,000 winners in the daily and weekly draw for making digital transactions between November 9, 2016 to December 21, 2016.

It was stated that the NPCI has no legal right as per law to announce the draw of daily lottery. It was further submitted that the Delhi government has already banned the lottery.

On Monday, chief metropolitan magistrate Dr Pankaj Sharma imposed a fine of ₹25,000 against the man and said precious judicial time had been wasted by the complainant.

The court said it is apparent that the grievance articulated by the complainant is unfounded as the persons who have been given cash incentives did not purchase lottery tickets.

“It is pertinent to note that the complainant has named Constitutional functionaries as respondents which includes the Prime Minister of India also.First, he withdrew his allegations against the Constitutional functionaries, however, later on, filed an application under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act seeking their disqualification. The complainant has failed to establish his ‘locus standi’ for filing the present complaint and the subsequent application,” it said in an order on January 3.

It added that cash incentives for promoting cashless transactions are a policy decision which falls within the domain of the Executive and as such interference by the court in that regard is improper.

The court observed that the complaint and the subsequent application has been filed to somehow gain cheap popularity by levelling baseless allegations against Constitutional functionaries.

“The complaint has no substance and the same is evidently filed and pursued with an oblique motive of hogging undue limelight for unwarranted publicity under the false pretence of public interest,” the court said while dismissing the complaint.