The Supreme Court on Friday objected to what it described as “sponsored litigation” filed in the guise of public interest litigation (PIL) [Kanithi Deepak Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh]. .A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea by a lawyer challenging tender conditions issued by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (AP TRANSCO).The Court asked how a practising advocate could claim familiarity with internal government tender processes and suggested that such litigation was often backed by competing commercial interests.“You are an advocate? How does an advocate working in a court know how a tender is going, what is happening in the tender process by a government department… where do you find the time to do all this?” the Bench asked.The Court then remarked that such petitions were frequently driven by rival bidders using lawyers as fronts.“These kinds of sponsored litigation by competitors… and the advocate is being a party to all this. We have said so many times that advocates must refrain from being party to this kind of PIL,” the Bench observed.It was initially inclined to impose costs on the petitioner but eventually permitted him to withdraw the PIL. .The petitioner had first approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging multiple tender notifications issued by AP TRANSCO relating to large-scale underground cable and transmission infrastructure works.Before the High Court, the petitioner alleged that the qualification criteria in the tenders were structured in a manner that favoured specific bidders and manufacturers while excluding others, thereby restricting competition and causing loss to the public exchequer.The High Court dismissed the PIL after noting that the petitioner had approached the Court long after the tenders were issued and after contracts had already been awarded and work had commenced.It further observed that the petition appeared to espouse the cause of contractors and companies rather than disadvantaged or marginalised groups for whom public interest litigation is ordinarily intended.The High Court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the tender process and had failed to establish any arbitrariness or mala fides in the decision-making process of the authorities.Following dismissal of the plea by the High Court, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court in appeal..The counsel appearing for the petitioner-lawyer argued that advocates often step forward to raise issues of public importance and expose wrongdoing.“If the lawyer does not come forward, then who will?” he said.“There are many other people. Don’t worry. Find a better cause. Go and offer pro bono services to poor litigants,” the Bench replied..Seeing that the Court was not willing to entertain the plea, counsel eventually sought permission to withdraw the petition. However, the Bench was not ready to let the matter go so easily."Dismissed with costs of ₹5 lakh" the bench ordered. "Please allow me to withdraw" counsel requested. "Your sponsor will pay, don't worry...We will not allow you to withdraw. So that you don’t re-agitate the cause and continue blackmailing at different fora,” the Bench remarked.However, counsel continued to press for withdrawal, urging the Court not to dismiss the petition with costs. “This is a PIL. With hard earned money we have done this. I may be permitted to withdraw. He’s a young advocate… Without going to the merits I request to withdraw,” counsel submitted.The Bench briefly discussed the request among themselves before reconsidering its position.“Chhod dein ise? (Should we let him go?)” Justice Vikram Nath remarked."Alight, dismissed as withdrawn" the Bench finally said while doing away with costs..[Read Live Coverage]
