Opposing the PIL on its maintainability, given that the challenge was being made after 46 years, the DWB termed such a challenge as an “abuse of the process of court”.The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a Trust, Save India Foundation, challenging a Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) notification from 46 years ago declaring three mosques in Jahangirpuri as Waqf properties.It also noted that the Trust “appears to be habitual of filing the petitions describing them as public interest litigations”. Since 2024, the Trust has filed 37 PILs and 11 other petitions before the HC.A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while dismissing the PIL, opined that “the petitioner has unnecessarily attempted to rake up the past” and that the “motive behind filing the writ petition also does not appear to be bonafide”.The Trust had challenged a March 1980 notification issued by DWB regarding three mosques in Jahangirpuri – two of them locally known as Jama Masjid and Moti Masjid, and the third called Masjid Jahangir Puri. It had argued that the land on which the mosques stood was acquired by the Delhi government in 1977, prior to the Waqf notification.The court, however, recorded in its order that “neither is there any evidence nor any proof” that establishes that the land over which the properties stand was acquired.Opposing the PIL on its maintainability, given that the challenge was being made after 46 years, the DWB termed such a challenge as an “abuse of the process of court”. The bonafide of the petitioner-Trust, too, was questioned by DWB, which had earlier this year filed a similar PIL.The bench, meanwhile, underlined the jurisprudence around PILs as laid down and emphasised by the Supreme Court over the years.Story continues below this ad“The Supreme Court on umpteen number of occasions has emphasised that on one hand, it is the duty of the superior courts to entertain public interest litigation petitions for protecting and achieving greater public interest, at the same time it is also the duty of the courts to ensure that frivolous petitions or petitions not filed with bonafide intentions or purpose which are styled as public interest litigation petitions, should be nipped in bud,” the bench underlined.“If we carefully examine the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the instant case and challenge made to the impugned notification after 46 years, we find that the instant petition has not been filed with bonafide motive or in public interest,” the bench recorded while refusing to entertain the plea.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read MoreStay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd