Public-interest Litigation (India) - Frivolous PILs

Frivolous PILs

Public-interest litigation is a rule of declared law by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for the public interest and not as a frivolous litigation for pecuniary gain. The 38th Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial fines would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PIL petitions. His statement was widely welcomed, because the instance of frivolous PILs for pecuniary interest has increased; a bench of the high court has also expressed concern over the misuse of PILs. The bench has issued a set of guidelines it wanted all courts in the country to observe when entertaining PILs.

In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the misuse of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some balance restored in recent times”. In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice is preparing a law regulating PILs. Helping the ministry are former Chief Justice of India Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, who pioneered PIL.

The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions”. Since the Amar Singh petition was vague, not in conformance with the rules of procedure and contained inconsistencies, the court did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). One positive outcome of the case was the court’s request that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines to prevent interception of telephone conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case, Reliance Communications acted upon a forged request from police.

In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation in business conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high court dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos substitutes. A similar petition was then submittd to the Supreme Court. The plea was dismissed, and the plaintiff was assessed a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in banning of the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was made by it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute for asbestos. Thus it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of court”. The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to punish the petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act; it must “ensure that such unscrupulous and undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the valuable time of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system”.

“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, ie, busybodies,” a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment. The bench overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, which set aside the services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed by the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. The high court’s decision concerned a public-interest petition filed by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the loss of “300 gold dollars” from the temple and should not continue in office. The Supreme Court found that the high court decided against the accused with little information about Reddy himself.

“The parameters within which PILs can be entertained have been laid down. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold”, the judgment stated. As for why it is skeptical about a large number of PILs, the bench spoke for the Supreme Court when it said that 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. This Court (Supreme Court of India) must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind”.