Use and abuse of PIL

Out Of Court

Eyebrows were raised in the courtroom last week when Coca-Cola counsel, unnerved by the Supreme Court judge's adverse remarks, pleaded that the company's self-serving writ petition may be turned into a public interest petition (PIL) "on behalf of the consumers".

Some people thought that PIL has really become an unruly horse. As if to bridle it, the court passed a judgement the following day in which it set further guidelines on the conduct of PIL in the Supreme Court and the high courts (Guruvayur Devaswom vs C K Rajan).

The occasion was the appeal of the Guruvayur temple management committee against a series of orders of the Kerala High Court probing into its finance and other affairs.

A devotee wrote a complaint to one of the high court judges explaining the various aspects of the mismanagement. The high court passed a series of orders which amounted to a full-fledged enquiry akin to the Enquiry Commission Act, and virtually taking over the management of the committee.

In one of its orders, the high court had directed the director of public relations to give wide publicity to the matter and invited complaints and suggestions from the public in general.

The Supreme Court stated that the high court had manifestly committed a mistake by embarking upon such a course. None of the guidelines allowed the high court to pass such detailed orders.

"This court and the high courts should not undertake an unnecessary journey through PIL unless there exists strong reasons to deviate from the guidelines. The court should be circumspect in entertaining such PIL," the judgement said.

It pointed out that access to justice posed a fundamental problem in third world countries. Its importance has increased in this country. Laws are designed to improve the socio-economic conditions of the poor, but making the law is not enough. They should be implemented.

If the government fails to do so, the citizens have a right to move PIL. This is the "jurisprudence of compassion" evolved by the Supreme Court. It opened the door wide to the public, keeping procedures to the minimum so that the substantial concerns of the deprivation of the rights could be remedied.

However, the problem is where to draw the line. Several judgements since the 1980s have attempted to lay down the rules of the game, but they have been ignored too often, as in this case.

Faced with gross abuse of PIL, some courts have swung to the other extreme by trying to gag PILs. A few years ago, the Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a series of impossible conditions to be fulfilled by public interest petitioners.

More recently, judgements in the Balco disinvestment case and the Narmada dam case have made remarks which tend to demoralise even genuine activists.

In Balco Employees' Union vs Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that PIL is now tending to become "publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a tendency to be counterproductive.

There have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse of PIL." The present judgement stated that these statements in the Balco judgement did not contain the "last words" on PIL.

Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Different problems may have to be dealt with differently, said the judgement.

The court then culled out nine principles to be followed while entertaining PILs. Though these are not new, and have been reiterated since 1981 in S P Gupta vs Union of India, they would act as reminder to the courts.

PIL, the Supreme Court said, should mainly be used for the welfare of the disadvantaged persons who cannot knock at the door of the court due to poverty, illiteracy or other reasons.

Only issues of public importance affecting a large number of people should be entertained. Procedures and strict rules of locus standi are relaxed in PILs.

Private grievances cannot be given a PIL garb to get easy access to the court. Moreover, the court can appoint commissions to find out the truth.

These guidelines are well-defined as far as they go, but one cannot rule out another occasion when some court in the country acted on the impulse of the moment.