New Delhi: The Supreme Court has frowned on the tendency to file public interest litigation petitions either to gain publicity or at the behest of someone who cannot or do not want to come to court directly. The court, by way of a warning, imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lakh on one such petitioner.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice S.H. Kapadia said, "howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt."

Exceptional cases

Writing the judgment, Justice Sabharwal said that in exceptional cases the court could examine the issue having regard to the serious nature of the public cause and likely public injury, even if the bona fides of the litigant was in doubt, by appointing an amicus curiae, but under no circumstances with the assistance of a doubtful public interest litigant.

The Bench said that no trust could be placed by the court on a mala fide applicant in a public interest litigation.

The Bench said, "it has been repeatedly held by this court that none has a right to approach the court as a public interest litigant and that the court must be careful to see that a member of the public, who approaches the court in public interest, is acting bona fide and not for any personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique considerations."

The Bench was of the view that "in the last few years, inflow of PIL has increased manifold. A considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases."

The Bench said it was true that PILs had been instrumental in securing relief to the underprivileged sections of society. But the Bench also sounded a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not allow the process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration.

"A camouflage"

In the present case, one Deepak Agarwal claiming to be a public-spirited person and a journalist, filed an application questioning the alleged patronage extended to Maruti by the Chhattisgarh Government for establishment of a coal washery plant on a piece of forest land.

Rejecting the application with Rs. 1 lakh as costs, the Bench pointed out that the petition was clearly and demonstrably a camouflage since the real person behind this application was a competitor of Maruti operating in the area and having a monopoly. The Bench directed him to pay this amount to the Central Empowered Committee dealing with forest matters.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail