PIL Litigation Alleviated Conditions Of Citizens; But Thousands Of Frivolous PILs being Filed

Case: Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Chetan Kamble

Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli

Case No.: CA 10425 OF 2010

Court Observation: “We do not find it appropriate for the High Court to have allowed respondent nos. 1 and 2 to have agitated issues concerning title and ownership in a public interest litigation. The conduct and history of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 is also not inspiring for continuing this unnecessary litigation. 34. Our conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that the State has clearly indicated that they do not have any interest in pursuing the ownership of the land in question and have admitted to the title of the appellants herein. In this light, we hold that institution of the public interest litigation was nothing more than an abuse of the process which cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstance so narrated.”

Public Interest Litigation is not a new concept in this Court. Although the jurisprudence in this regard has matured, many claims filed in the Courts are sometimes immature. Thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts. Noble intentions behind expanding the Court’s jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analyzed. In our view, PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general. For those at the receiving end of the Court’s directions, we can only advise “C’est la vie”.

One of the measures this Court can adopt to ensure that frivolous or private interests are not masqueraded as genuine claims, is to be cautious when examining locus standi. Generally, PIL, being a summary jurisdiction, has limited powers to examine the bonafides of parties. It is usually on the pleadings that the Court should take a prima facie view on the bonafides of the party. If the Court concludes that the litigation was initiated under the shadow of reasonable suspicion, then the Court may decline to entertain the claims on merits. In these cases, Courts have multiple options – such as dismissing the PIL or appointing an amicus curiae, if the cause espoused in the case requires the immediate attention of the Court

Previous Posts

Section 34 IPC Not Attracted When Final Outcome or Offence Committed is Distinctly Remote and Unconnected with Common Intention: Supreme Court

Position Of Claimant Post Accident Relevant Factor To Determine Compensation Under Head Of Loss Of Amenities & Happiness: Supreme Court

Magistrates Can Appoint & Authorize Advocate Commissioners To Take Possession Of Secured Assets U/Sec 14 SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act Has Overriding Effect on Central Excise Act; Dues of Secured Creditor Has Priority over Dues of Central Excise Dept.: Supreme Court

Service Tax – Exemption Notification Should Not Be Liberally Construed; Assessee Has To Show That He Comes Within Its Purview: Supreme Court

‘Constitutional’ Power To Punish For Contempt Cannot Be Taken Away Even By Legislative Enactment: Supreme Court Download Judgement