The glare created by recent judgments in public interest cases, like the 2G spectrum scam, illegal money cached abroad and human rights violations have blinded the eyes to the darker side of such litigation. Every now and then, the Supreme Court and high courts come across instances public interest litigation (PIL) abuse.
Earlier this month, one judgment of the Supreme Court again lamented the misuse of PIL for private purposes. The judgment opened with the remark that “this appeal is representative of the large number of cases which are filed in the courts across the country and which consume valuable time of the courts without any tangible justification. The very fact that the Kerala high court devoted time to record an order running into 56 typed sheets and also the fact that this court has devoted many hours indicates how a purely civil and private litigation, camouflaged as a PIL, puts unnecessary burden on the courts and results in wastage of time which could otherwise be devoted for those who are waiting for years together with the hope that some day they will get an opportunity of hearing”. (P R Narahari Rao vs State of Kerala).
The suit was about damage caused to a boundary wall owing to the construction of a three-star hotel nearby. The civil court appointed a commissioner to investigate it. His report did not satisfy the land owner. He moved the high court challenging the building rules, clothing his grievances in PIL garb.
Describing the facts of the case, the judgment stated that the person who approached the court “cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a person pursuing remedy in public interest. It was plain and simple a private interest litigation camouflaged as PIL”.
The PIL movement, which has become a powerful force to vent public grievances, started some three decades ago at the instance of judges themselves. Despite initial doubts and strong opposition from vested interests, the movement steadily gained strength, becoming the nemesis of the negligent and corrupt.
The court had to justify their affirmative thrust in several judgments, often adopting a rhetoric style. In S P Gupta vs Union of India (1982), a Constitution Bench said: “Today a vast revolution is taking place in the judicial process; the theatre of the law is fast changing and the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront. The court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.”
The only way in which this can be done is by opening the doors of the court to the common people, it asserted.
However, the PIL movement has often behaved like an “unruly horse”. Busybodies and proxies have often appropriated the path built for the underprivileged and the voiceless. At one stage, former Supreme Court judge Krishna Iyer observed that even judges have used PIL to promote their own causes, “where, in substance, what was sought was new cars, more furniture, additional luxuries and the pomp of flags”.
The solution, in the words of British judge Lord Denning, is that “with a good man in the saddle, the unruly horse can be kept under control. It can jump over obstacles. It can leap fences put up by fictions and come down on the side of justice”.
The courts have been doing this forensic manoeuvre in several instances. The Supreme Court has described those who bring frivolous and vexatious PIL cases as “busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners”. Some of them do it for a moment of glory in the media. The courts have, therefore, started imposing costs on this variety of litigants.
In the case, Dattaraj Nathuji vs State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court expressed anguish at the misuse of court and observed that “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 court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations”.
Last year, the court imposed Rs 1 lakh on a lawyer who moved the court challenging the appointment of a law officer (State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh). It also laid down an eight-point test to verify the bonafides of petitioners. Penal steps have been taken in cases like Sanjeev Bhatnagar vs Union of India and Dattaraj vs State of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court has also suggested that when industrial projects are delayed owing to frivolous litigation, the petitioner should be saddled with cost escalation.
