Frivolous PILs bane of our judicial system: Bombay High Court slaps ₹3 lakh costs in PIL against slum rehabilitation project

The Bombay High Court recently lamented the increasing number of frivolous public interest litigation (PIL) petitions being filed in courts and echoed the sentiments of the Supreme Court that such PILs are the bane on our judicial system [Abhilash Umesh Reddy v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.].Terming one such PIL as a classic case of gross abuse of the court process, a division bench of Justices GS Patel and SG Dige directed that a pre-hearing deposit of ₹3 lakh made by the petitioner in that PIL be converted to costs and paid to a cancer institute.The Court added that it wanted to send a strong message to those who seek to abuse and misuse the system. .“We do not permit this petition 'to be converted' into a public interest litigation nor do we permit it to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a public interest litigation. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, false, mischievous and frivolous public interest litigations are increasingly the bane of our judicial system. While we are rejecting the petition but we intend to send a strong message to those who seek to abuse and misuse our system and believe they can do so without costs,” the Court said. .The PIL was filed by one Abhilasha Reddy, who approached the Court challenging a slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) project. .Earlier, another bench of the Court had directed Reddy to deposit ₹ 3 lakh as a pre-condition to hear the case and so that the bona fides of the petitioner could be demonstrated. Despite the deposit, the bench of Justices Patel and Dige was not convinced about the petitioner’s locus to file the present PIL and proceeded to reject the petition. .The petitioner had made various allegations of irregularities, illegalities, and collusion with respect to the slum rehabilitation project. The Court, however, noted that the beneficiaries of the slum rehabilitation had no complaints. Therefore, it is unclear on whose behalf the petition was filed, the bench observed. “The petitioner has no track record of public interest litigation or of espousing public causes in the larger public interest. The petitioner has singled out one particular slum rehabilitation project, one developer, one slum society and the SRA ... We have every reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner. This is not a petition that raises any larger issue pertaining to slum rehabilitation projects generally or town and country planning or general principles of sound town planning,” the Court remarked. .The Court further noted that the petitioner had not indicated how he obtained information regarding the alleged irregularities mentioned in his petition. While the petitioner later claimed on affidavit that he was an RTI activist, the Court noted that it was not even his case that he had obtained information on the allegations through disclosures under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act)..All of this led the Court to reject the petition and convert the pre-hearing deposit made earlier into costs. The Court further directed the registry to transfer the deposited amount of ₹ 3 lakh to the St Jude India Child Care Centres which support cancer-affected children and their families..[Read order]