Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]news-clippings/pil-as-an-unruly-horse-by-mj-antony-1252.html"/> न्यूज क्लिपिंग्स् | PIL as an unruly horse by MJ Antony | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

PIL as an unruly horse by MJ Antony


SC lays down eight rules to streamline the PIL movement and wants the courts to follow them

What the development of public interest litigation (PIL) and right to information has done to the justice delivery system can be compared, with a little exaggeration, to the growth of mobile telephony and Internet in communications. The only fear is that they may act like unruly horses at times.

Public interest petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court in recent years for changing the name of India to Hindustan and the Arabian Sea to Sindhu Sagar, and changing the national anthem to one offered, and partly sung, by the petitioner before the then chief justice of India (CJI).

There have been private interest litigation in the garb of PIL, often to sabotage industrial projects, take revenge on a rival businessman, or to get promotion in public service. The Supreme Court has condemned this practice in several judgments over the decades; but the enthusiasm of the “interlopers, meddlers and busybodies”, as the court called them, exceeds the fear of dismissal and imposition of the cost of litigation.

Recently, the court delivered another judgment setting guidelines for moving public interest petitions. In the State of Uttarakhand vs Balwant Singh case, the complaint was against the appointment of a particular person as advocate general of the state because he was over 62 years old. Though several Supreme Court judgments since 1962 have clarified that there is no age restriction in the appointment of an advocate general, the Uttarakhand High Court took the petition seriously and issued a notice to the government. Therefore, the state appealed to the Supreme Court. The lawyer-petitioner who moved the plea in the high court vanished from the scene. As expected, the Supreme Court gave the government the go-ahead. But what followed has relevance to the conduct of PIL in the high courts and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court called this so-called litigation “a clear case of the abuse of process of court in the name of the public interest litigation.” It said that in order to curb this tendency effectively, it has now become imperative to examine all connected issues of public interest litigation by an authoritative judgment “in the hope that in future no such petition would be filed in and/or entertained by courts”.

The PIL movement was started in the 1980s by the judges of the Supreme Court. The lawyers merely assisted them. It was given a firm foundation through judgments like in the case of SP Guta, PUCL and MC Mehta. The court, while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review, realised that a very large section of society, because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination or illiteracy, had been denied justice for time immemorial and, in fact, they had no access to justice.

“Predominantly, to provide access to justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalised sections of society, this court has initiated, encouraged and propelled PIL,” the present judgment explained, and added: “The litigation is the upshot of this court’s deep and intense urge to fulfill its bounden duty and constitutional obligation.”

The PIL movement has so far passed three stages. In the first phase, it dealt with the right to life of the inarticulate persons in jail or in illegal custody. In the second period, it encompassed public grievances against environmental degradation and quality of life. In the third leg, the court attempted to maintain probity, transparency in public life and integrity in governance.

However, abuse of PIL has been its constant shadow. Therefore, the Uttarakhand judgment wanted to “streamline” the movement. It laid down eight rules for the future. Firstly, the courts must encourage genuine PIL and effectively discourage those moved with oblique motives. Secondly, instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure, each high court should formulate its rules regarding PIL. The high courts have been asked to send the rules to the Supreme Court. Thirdly, courts should verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

The court should be satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition and the public interest involved in it. The court should ensure that the petition that involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. Before entertaining a PIL, the courts should ensure that it is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind the PIL. Finally, the courts should discourage frivolous petitions by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting novel methods.

In the true spirit of PIL orders, the Supreme Court has decided to monitor the compliance of its guidelines. It has asked the registry of each high court to send a report about the steps it has taken in following the above rules. It looks as if the PIL movement is approaching the fourth and the most formidable phase.