New Delhi: The Supreme Court has frowned on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions filed by busy bodies for the sake of publicity. It asked the High Courts to throw out these frivolous PILs imposing exemplary costs when there was material to show that a petition styled as PIL was nothing but a camouflage to settle personal scores.

A Bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta said "PIL which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law should not be `publicity interest litigation' or `private interest litigation' or `politics interest litigation' or the latest trend `paise income litigation.' If not properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well."

Writing the judgment Justice Pasayat said that there must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation. It must not become an `adventure of a knight-errant' borne out of wishful thinking. It could also not be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity.

Upholding a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rejecting a PIL as not maintainable, the Bench said "PIL is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens."

The Judges said: "The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."

The Bench said: "A time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as PILs are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called PILs where even a miniscule percentage cannot legitimately be called as PILs."

It regretted that though the apex court in a large number of cases had indicated the parameters of PIL, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts were entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time, which could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases.

The Bench also deprecated the tendency to file PILs based on newspaper reports without making any attempt to verify their authenticity. "It would be desirable for the courts to filter out frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts," it said.

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