The directions were given by a division bench of Justice A V Sawant and Justice Ranjana Desai while hearing a petition filed by one Arvind Ghatpande, a Pune resident, who had urged the court to take action against the Union government for failing to defend the country's borders and for being responsible for the deaths of the soldiers who died in the Kargil war.

Ghatpande had based his allegations on media reports, especially the newsmagazine Outlook, which had claimed that the defence authorities were aware of the designs of Pakistan's intrusion into Kargil but had neglected it.

His list of respondents included the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Home Minister, the Chief of Army Staff V P Malik, Lt. Gen H M Khanna, Lt. Gen Kishan Pal and Maj General V S Budhwar. He also wanted to implead the President, butcould not do so as the Constitution prevents it.

He prayed for a declaration that all the respondents were ``traitors'' , to be dealt with as ``traitors'', ``according to law''.

Interestingly, Ghatpande, who was to argue his case in person, was absent in the court. In his absence, Justice Sawant asked additional solicitor general of India, D Y Chandrachud, if the case should be taken up for hearing. Chandrachud submitted while it should not normally be taken up, in this case, since the petitioner himself claimed that he had filed such PILs earlier, he should have remained in court. He argued that the petition was frivolous and the court should take a serious view of such petitions, saying that the petition was based on media reports that had been time and again refuted by the defence ministry. Moreover, Brigadier Surinder Singh, who was in charge of the Third Infantry division at Kargil and who is supposed to have written a letter to the defence ministry officials warning of a build up by Pakistan atKargil had been shifted to Ranchi in June for being unfit, Chandrachud argued.

Singh's petition challenging this transfer before the Ranchi bench of the Bihar High Court was dismissed. Chandrachud argued that if the person on whose letter this petition was filed lost his own case, how could such a petition be even considered.

The petition was accordingly dismissed. And as the petitioner was not present, a notice has been issued to him asking him why ``exemplary costs'' should not be awarded to him for such frivolous petitions.