The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down strongly on the growing misuse of public interest litigation (PIL), noting that the jurisdiction is increasingly being invoked for purposes far removed from genuine public interest.
Raising concerns over the misuse of PILs, Justice BV Nagarathna noted that courts are increasingly encountering PILs driven by private or publicity-oriented motives rather than genuine public causes.
“One thing we want to say by way of a reaction, PIL - Public interest litigation has now become private interest litigation, publicity interest litigation, paisa interest litigation and political interest litigation. All are called PILs. But we entertain only real and genuine PILs,” observed Justice Nagarathna.
The observations came during hearings in a reference arising from the Sabarimala review case, which is being examined by a nine-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant along with Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The Bench was hearing arguments as part of an ongoing reference dealing with key questions on religious freedoms.
At one point, CJI Kant indicated the Court’s concern that PILs are often being founded merely on media reports.
“We entertained PILs based on this kind of document which should have been thrown outrightly in the dustbin? A news item…Law would have taken its own course, if someone has committed misconduct,” said CJI Kant.
Justice Nagarathna underlined that the Court is conscious of such trends, stating,
“It is easy to get articles written for the sake of filing PILs. We are very much aware. We have entertained PILs in High Court. We are entertaining PILs here for genuine causes, for giving relief to public in need of it. Not for articles written in newspapers.”
She also cautioned against converting every grievance into a PIL, noting,
“Every day, my lord the Chief Justice receives hundreds of letters. Can all those be converted to PILs?”
The Bench further underscored that the nature of PIL proceedings cannot be used to justify such filings. When it was argued that PILs are not adversarial in nature, CJI Kant responded,
“We don’t want to go into this debate, PIL can also be adversarial litigation...There will be parties affected; it could have consequences adversarial in nature, nothing wrong in that.”
Responding to the Court’s concerns, counsel acknowledged that PILs are being misused but pointed out that several safeguards have already been put in place.
Justice Nagarathna, however, was quick to interject,
“Not being followed.”
[Read Live Coverage]