The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redress of genuine public harm or public injury.

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 25th February 2020 

Case: State of Uttranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (Civil appeal no. 1134 – 1135 of 2002)

Facts of the case:

1. Appeals have been filed by the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) against the orders dated 12.7.2001 and 1.8.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001.
2. The appointment of L. P. Nathani was challenged before the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation on the ground that he could not hold the august Office of the Advocate General of Uttarakhand in view of Article 165 read with Article 217 of the Constitution. According to the respondent, Mr. Nathani was ineligible to be appointed as the Advocate General because he had attained the age of 62 years much before he was appointed as the Advocate General. The High Court entertained the petition and directed the State Government to take decision on the issue raised within 15 days and apprise the same to the High Court.
3. The State of Uttaranchal preferred special leave petitions before Supreme Court on 6.8.2001. Supreme Court vide order dated 9.8.2001 stayed the operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court. Thereafter on 11.2.2002, Supreme Court granted leave and directed that the stay already granted shall continue.
4. Despite the service of notice, the respondents who had initially filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the appointment of Nathani as the Advocate General did not appear before this Court. This clearly demonstrates the non- seriousness and non-commitment of the respondents in filing the petition.

Judgment:

1. In the instant case, the High Court entertained the petition despite the fact that the controversy involved in the case was no longer res integra. The controversy raised by the petitioner in this case was decided 58 years ago in the judgment of Karkare[1] which was approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court way back in 1962. Unfortunately, the same controversy has been repeatedly raised from time to time in various High Courts. When the controversy is no longer res-integra and the same controversy is raised repeatedly, then it not only wastes the precious time of the Court and prevent the Court from deciding other deserving cases, but also has the immense potentiality of demeaning a very important constitutional office and person who has been appointed to that office.
2. To settle the controversy, we deem it appropriate to deal with different definitions of the Public Interest Litigation in various countries. We would also examine the evolution of the public interest litigation. DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION[2]:

“Public Interest – Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national government….”

• It has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest litigation petitions by two methods – (1) monetary, (2) non-monetary. The first category of cases is that where the court on filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Pubjab & Others[3], the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.
• Supreme Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another[4], the Supreme Court observed that, “we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners” for filing a “light-hearted and indifferent” PIL petition. However, to prevent “nipping in the bud a well-founded claim on a future occasion,” the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners.” In this case, Supreme Court concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in this case.
• Supreme Court in instant case allowed the appeals filed by the State and quash the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001 filed in the Uttaranchal High Court and further directed that the respondents (who were the petitioners before the High Court) to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in the name of Registrar General of the High court of Uttarakhand. The costs to be paid by the respondents within two months.
• In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:
• The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
• Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives.
• The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.
• The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
• The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
• The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
• The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redress of genuine public harm or public injury.

[1] G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shevde & Others AIR 1952 Nagpur 330

[2]  Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition)

[3] AIR 2007 SC 758

[4] AIR 1984 SC 309