"Important that access to justice not denied:" Supreme Court reduces pre-admission costs for hearing PIL from ₹ 3.9 crore to ₹ 10 lakh

The pre-admission costs of ₹3.9 crore which was ordered by the Bombay High Court to be paid by a litigant as a condition to hear his public interest litigation (PIL) petition was reduced by the Supreme Court to ₹10 lakh (Arvind Tukaram Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra). .The apex court allowed the appeal filed against an order of the Bombay High Court while restoring the PIL petition to the file of the High Court. .In doing so, the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that while it is important to ensure that public projects are not dislocated by the institution of motivated PILs, it is equally necessary to ensure that a balance is struck so as to preclude the possibility of a denial of access to justice..The appellant, a Corporator for the Pune Municipal Corporation, had been directed by the Bombay High Court to deposit 1% of the estimated project cost of ₹390 crore to demonstrate his bona fides in moving a PIL against a sewage treatment plan..The order of the High Court derived its power from Rule 7A of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, that is intended to ensure that motivated PILs do not dislocate public projects..Aggrieved by the order, the appellant moved the Supreme Court and submitted that the cost would place an unbearable burden on him and prevent him from pursuing the challenge in Court..Considering this submission, the Bench observed that even though the order was meant to avoid delay in a public project, the costs imposed was quite harsh. .“While bearing Rule 7A in mind, it is equally necessary to ensure that a balance is struck so as to preclude the possibility of a denial of access to justice. Undoubtedly, the order of the High Court was intended to sub-serve the interest of ensuring that a public project is not unduly delayed by litigation. At the same time, we are of the view that the order for deposit of 1% of the project cost would be rather harsh and the interim order which was passed by this Court would sub-serve the ends of justice", the Court said. .The Bench proceeded to recount that on July 19, the Supreme Court had directed the appellant to pay ₹ 10 lakh before August 3 before the High Court to demonstrate his bona fides. On Tuesday, it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that the amount had been deposited..As such, the Supreme Court restored the matter back to the High Court, opining that the PIL can be heard on the basis of the payment already made to demonstrate the litigant's bona fides. ."The writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court. It would be open for the appellant to move the High Court for listing of the petition for admission. We clarify that we have made no observations in regard to the maintainability of the petition or on the merits of the case", the Court added.Advocates Vipin Nair and PB Suresh represented the petitioner. .[Read Order]