PIL Filed By An Unregistered Body Is Not Maintainable

Kandeep Shravan | SASTRA Deemed to be University | 7th July 2020

Prathyasa Mental Health Counselling Forum Vs. State Of Kerala

Facts:

The petitioner, being a non-registered establishment filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging a notification issued by the by the Transport Department, Government of Kerala. The notification insisted on relaxing the lock-down restrictions and permitted to carry passengers in all the seats available in stage carriage. The petitioner pointed out that the Government has tried it’s best to stop the spread of Covid-19 , yet unable to achieve desired results and stated that the spread of infection almost was on the verge of community spread, and such relaxations issued by the Kerala Government would affect the health and life of people which can lead to loss of countless lives. Hence the Petitioner stated that the above-mentioned notification is arbitrary and violates Art 21 of the Constitution as it is harmful to the life and health of the people of Kerala. The petitioner further states that the State Government’s decision crushes the purpose of social distancing which is essential to thwart the spread of Covid-19 by allowing stage carriages to carry passengers in all seats. The petitioner referred to the case of Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India when confronted with issue of maintainability.

Issues:                                                                                        

1. Whether a PIL filed by an unregistered body is maintainable?
2. Can the Swaraj Abiyan case be relied upon?

Decision of the Court:

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention and differentiated between a ‘person’ and a ‘juristic person’, further stating that a juristic person refers to a body recognized by the law as being entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a natural or human person. The Court relied on various decisions laid down by the Supreme Court such as S.P. Gupta v. Union of India; State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd and observed that an unregistered body cannot file a writ petition under Article 141 of the Constitution. Hence the petitioner, an unregistered body through its Programme Co-ordinator does not fall under the definition of a ‘juristic person’. The Court also stated that Swaraj Abhiyan’s case cannot be relied upon as there was no specific issue regarding the maintainability of a writ petition filed by an unregistered body in that case.Analysis: Taking consideration of various law precedents, interim orders and its binding effect and also the maintainability issue regarding the filing of a writ petition by an unregistered body, it was held by the court that the instant writ petition filed as PIL by an unregistered body is not maintainable. It was observed by the court that if anyone or any establishment/organization could move a writ petition, it would portray the legal framework meaningless and bring in a procedure which is of no judicial recognition.