Filing P.I.L. for Publicity? Know the Consequences

INTRODUCTION

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from its name itself suggests the litigation filed for the public interest. Public interest means the welfare or well being of the general public. In simple words, we can call it social interest or social welfare. Public Interest Litigation is a modern phenomenon in Indian jurisprudence. Prior to it, the Supreme Court of India entertained the litigations only from the aggrieved parties through its original or appellate jurisdiction. But with coming of the concept of PIL, the persons other than the aggrieved or injured party, who are not concerned to the case directly or indirectly can also file litigation which by its nature must address the matter of public interest or public importance. PIL is a very important weapon gifted to the public, in order to protect the public interest by knocking the doors of the courts on behalf of the injured individual or a group of persons, who cannot make up to getting justice for themselves.

HISTORY

The concept of PIL had its origin in the United States. In many cases, many decisions have been given in regard to standing in PIL by the Supreme Court of the U.S. In India, the first case which diffused in the elements of PIL in the Indian legal atmosphere was Mumbai Kanga Sabha vs. M/S Abdulbhai Faizullabhai[1]. Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer in this case, allowed the union to represent the bulk of workers employed in the tiny, but numerous establishments.

In another case of Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar[2] presided by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, was a leading case that outlined the phenomenon of PIL. During the national emergency of 1975-77, many innocent people were jailed. In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani who was herself a prisoner. As well as an advocate filed a petition on behalf of the prisoners; languishing in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in the court. Her petition led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners. The right to speedy trial emerged as a basic fundamental right that had been denied to these prisoners.

S.P. Gupta vs. President of India and Ors.[3]  Was the first case in which the new movement. We can say a new era of Public Interest Litigation was pronounced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. Justice Bhagwati expressed, “It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or a determinate class of persons. Because of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision. Or without authority of law or any such legal wrong; or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty; helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position; unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction; order or writ in the High Court under Article 226. In case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons; in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”

Indian courts thereafter flooded with PILs bringing out landmark decisions for the betterment of the society but simultaneously this new tool has also been and is still being misused by many.

IMPORTANCE OF PIL

In the domain of the Indian legal system, PIL plays the role of a watchdog to keep the check on the proper implementation of laws and their infringement by politicians, government authorities, to live up to their commitments, who breed in society by transgressing the rights of others. Let us look at some of the points proving PIL to be the crucial part of judicial activism:

• Encompassing both Part 3 and 4 of the Indian Constitution- Fundamental Rights (Part 3) and Directive Principles Of State Policy (Part 4) are both called the soul of Indian Constitution because,
•  by the virtue of these two parts, the relation between the State and the citizens can be maintained, moreover, the principle of Socialism engraved in the Preamble, can get its functional value. PIL is a device that helps in encompassing both these parts with the help of the judiciary and has also widened the scope of these two parts. Bandhua Mukti Morcha & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.[4] is a perfect instance for the inclusion of both Part 3 and Part 4 which can be brought into exercise with the help of PIL.
• Easy filing procedure- Any citizen can file PIL, but it must be satisfied by the court that the party filing it is an aggrieved party, or on the behalf of whom it is being filed is bona fide and injured party. It can be fought both personally as well as with the help of an advocate. It can be filed by any “public-spirited person[5]” who wants to knock the doors of the court for the public good at large. Evidential technicalities are not involved. It can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32, in the High Court under Article 226 and the Court of Magistrate under Section 133, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the fee is nominal fee court which makes filing PIL easier and inexpensive.
• Relaxation of Locus Standi- PIL is a departure from the traditional rule of Locus Standi (capacity to stand in court) where the judicial redress is available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury because of violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury because of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action.[6] This important feature brings into play the democratization of the Judiciary on the Indian stage. Thus it sets the new trend where a person can file a petition for others without having legal capacity or Locus Standi. This is also called Epistolary Jurisdiction.
• Wider scope- PILs can be filed in various forms, widening up the scope of its litigation. Public matters like bonded labor matters, matters of neglected children, exploitation of casual laborers and non-payment of wages to them (except in individual cases), matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Economically Backward Classes, either by co-villagers or by police,  matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wildlife, petitions from riot victims and other matters of public importance. Apart from these matters, private matters where the right of some individual is being infringed either by other private or public authority/ individual, the court can take Suo Moto i.e. when SC and HC by using their inherent powers can itself file the petition on behalf of that person. In other cases where fundamental rights or grievous crimes like rape, dowry death, prisoner’s torturer death or jail, etc. take place, a writ petition can be filed which by the consent of the judge can take the form of PIL.
• Social welfare- This is the most basic yet constructive role of PILs. PIL is nowhere defined under any law or statute but through judicial activism, the conclusive meaning and requirement for PIL in any country lies in its very nature which is to secure and promote social welfare. It fights against many societal pests existing in our nation like corruption, crumbled rights of the poor, caste oriented mindsets, women and children’s rights, and most importantly it assists in protecting Human rights. It also brings in the

IMPORTANT CASES

Apart from some PIL cases, we have gone through earlier in this article, there are several others which have proved to be the milestone in this emerging concept of public welfare through the doorsteps of judiciary. Some of the important PIL cases are discussed hereunder:

• Vishakha & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan[7]– Bhanwari Devi who was working under the Governmental campaign against the child marriage was raped by five men when she attempted to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl child. Naina Kapur, lawyer of Bhanwari Devi filed the PIL against sexual harassment at the workplace. The judgment of this case recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a clear violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Right to freedom) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This judgment through PIL was seen as a revolution in the Indian judicial system.
• M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[8]– M.C. Mehta filed a PIL to prevent the Ganga basin pollution. Supreme Court shut down many industries as a consequence of this PIL which saved not only the life of one person but thousands of people using Ganga river water.
• Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India[9]– He filed PIL concerning the person who died due to the negligence and formalities imposed by medical professionals who died after an accident of his scooter with a car. As a result of this PIL, SC ordered that human life must be considered of paramount concern, and said that every doctor either at a government hospital or otherwise must prioritize the life of the human as the most crucial part of their job.
• Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India[10]– PIL was filed before SC seeking the establishment of fast- track courts for speedy trials of cases involving politicians and criminal cases. The SC ordered the establishment of 12 fast track courts which were to be made functional from March 1, 2018 which was earlier contemplated by the Government.
• Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. State of Kerela[11]– PIL filed by Young Lawyers Association consisting of six women against the ban on entry of women in Sabrimala temple. SC held the ban as unconstitutional and allowed women to enter the temple holding that “Devotion cannot be subjected to Gender Discrimination.”

‘PUBLIC INTEREST’ OR ‘PUBLICITY INTEREST’ LITIGATION?

PIL was allowed into the Indian judicial tradition to maintain the principles enshrined in The Constitution. But unfortunately, it seems to get away from its core objective for which it was introduced. Nowadays cases of frivolous PILs are increasing at a high rate, people are filing PILs for gaining publicity or for political agendas or for some personal interests which are deplorable and also dangerous for the society.

There are some petitions filed that do not seek public tranquility at all rather sought to bring national disturbance if not dismissed. A recent example of one such PIL is which sought to direct to move out all Muslims from India and send them to Pakistan, filed by former RSS member and social worker in Uttarakhand, Sangat Singh Chauhan. On March 15, 2019, this petition was dismissed by SC bench comprising of Justice R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran who irritatedly asked “do you really want to argue this?” they also said that although they are listening to this petty petition, but they will take strict scriptures against the one who filed it. This petition did not only make the Judges angry but also raised the question that effective deterrent is required to prevent these types of petitions which blatantly violate the Constitutional principles.

There is a whole list of PILs which on the face of the petition tells that it is just filed for the vested interest of the petitioner and not for the interest of the public. Some of these petitions are discussed below:

• Vaishya Samaj Association prayed to the Centre in the PIL to construct the Great Wall OF India along the entire border of the country. The petition was dismissed.
• Advocate Asok Pande filed PIL for lowering the marriageable age of boys from 21 years to 18 years, which missed the element of public interest. Petition was dismissed and a fine of 25,000 was imposed on Pande.
• Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna dismissed the PIL filed by former high court Advocate seeking a direction to Tihar Jail authorities to give the option of organ donation to four convicts of Nirbhaya Rape Case. Justices asked to have some human approach while filing the petition and no one can force another person to donate his/ her organs without his consent even if he/ she is a convict. This was the sheer example of a petty petition filed to get fame and publicity by an advocate in the legal domain.
• Renaming India as Bharat is another example in the PIL system which seems to bring up the matters of personal mindsets and personal interests rather than helping someone fighting for fundamental rights. “Petitions arising out of emotions and not fundamental rights are being filed in this court. You think we have no other work. India will be India and Bharat will be Bharat,” the bench comprising of justices TS Thakur and UU Lalit told the petitioner Niranjan Bhatwal, a Maharashtra-based social activist, on Friday.
• PIL filed by Advocate R.B. Sharma for repealing all pre-independence laws because in his opinion parliament is hostage to the colonial mindset. The petition was dismissed as it did not serve the purpose of PIL and fine of Rs. 1 Lakh was imposed.

These are just a few examples; the Courts are uptight with thousands of PILs filed each year. The only question is do these petitions fulfill the contents of PIL to maintain its sanctity. A former Delhi High Court chief justice told Outlook that the judiciary needs to be more proactive in dealing with those who file cases “purely to gain publicity”. He says: “PILs like the one dema­nding deportation of Indian Mus­lims is a criminal waste of the court’s time. The increasing frequency of such petitions is a matter that should deeply concern the judges and a mechanism to arrest the abuse of PILs, which otherwise are an effe­ctive tool of social justice, must be put in place with urgency.”[12] Justice Khehar has been tough for curbing these lousy and frivolous PILs wasting precious time of the court. Resources of the courts must be used in important cases and not on such groundless matters.

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF FILING PIL FOR PUBLICITY

Up till now it is clear that PILs are effective tools for curbing social injustice and encouraging the democratization of the judiciary. But half of the time of the courts, overburdened with lakhs of cases, is eaten up by frivolous PILs having no ground and also disturbing the constitutional balance.

In September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the misuse of PILs saying that “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective measure was required and we have had some balance restored in recent times.[13]

Ministry of Law and Justice has may times initiated steps to curb the corrupted PILs but nothing came into exercise as effective or corrective measures.

Supreme Court in a case relating to the appointment of a law officer in Uttarakhand Government, comprising of a bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and M R Sharma, laid down certain guidelines to prevent the frivolous PILs; Guidelines were as follows:

• Only bonafide PILs should be encouraged while those brought for extraneous purposes must be discouraged.
• Every High Court must frame rules for curbing the frivolous and lousy PILs which will save the time of the court instead of every individual judge devising new procedure with the registry of every new PIL.
• Credentials of the petitioner should be verified before entertaining a PIL.
• Facts mentioned in PIL must be ascertained of their correctness.
• Priority should be given to PILs involving larger public interest.
• Check whether substantial public interest is involved or not.
• Ensure that no PIL seeks personal gain, private motive, or oblique motive, it must only seek redressal of genuine public harm or injury.
• Exemplary fines must be imposed on busybodies and frivolous PILs.

A bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice S K Kaul in 2017,  said that liberal access to justice had led to chaos and indiscipline. “The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow,” the bench said. SC thus asked all the courts to impose exemplary costs on people who file frivolous petitions, saying such litigation “chokes” the judicial system. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach that penalizes such behavior, “the bench said, adding, “Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now, our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations.”

The court imposed 5 Lakhs fine on a tenant who with the goal of delaying the implementation of the court’s order, filed multiple petitions. He was asked to vacate a property by Bombay HC.

The petition cannot be rejected in the initial process when it is being registered, even though there are different regulations have been framed. At the time of registration, only the legal technicalities of the petition are taken care of, rather than the subject matter of the PIL. SC believes that no one should be denied the chance of being heard, from the doorstep of the court. The petition can be dismissed by the judge if he does not think it fit for promoting social interest, but this process eats up valuable time of the court.

In countries like India, where lakhs of cases are pending in courts, stern and strict steps must be taken to eradicate the misuse of PIL for publicity or individual interests rather than for what it was designed for. Moreover, it not only hijacks the judicial system but is also the enemy of genuine social matters which could not come up due to the crowd of these lousy PILs.

Some of the important steps which can be taken up to curb this emerging issue of PIL used as an attractive brand name used for suspicious products of mischief:

• Legislation– there must be a different legislation enacted for PILs, giving it a defined shape for its working, maintenance, and redressal. Matters to be taken up by the courts must be defined in the courts. Moreover, provisions relating to fine according to the different nature of the petition must also be defined,
• Sensitizing the lawyers– Lawyers must be sensitized for the important issues involving human rights and social justice of the people at large rather than bringing up the matters of minimal importance. Law students, lawyers, and everyone in the legal domain must act responsibly while complying with PILs and must seek a bigger picture rather than just wishing for high profile cases or publicity.
• Governance– Ministry of Law and Justice must take stern steps in eradicating this issue of baseless petitions by changing the political climate as well as bringing in new measures. Politicians or groups filing PILs for their interests must be displaced from their respective positions.
• Importance of PILs – PILs must be considered serious and important litigations. It must not be initiated by individuals or NGOs or lawyers in order to bring trivial matters concerned with their personal or religious sentiments. PILs should be used for the higher good.
• Legal knowledge– Apart from lawyers, the other individuals bringing insignificant matters must be imparted with legalities and importance of PILs,

CONCLUSION

Public Interest Litigation is a sword that can be used by any individual to fight against any social injustice, weakening the system. But the core purpose for which PIL Was made functional by the efforts of Justices V.R. Krishnaiyer and P.N. Bhagwati should be kept in mind before moving to the court. PIL is fuel to the Constitutional machinery. Although, it is nowhere defined in the Indian Constitution but if used in an effective manner, it can upheld the principles framed in our Constitution for Public Interest as its name suggest, ‘Public Interest Litigation.’

---

References:

[1]  1976 AIR 1455, 1976 SCR (3) 591

[2] 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532

[3] AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365

[4] 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67

[5] People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1982, SC 1473).

[6]  S.P. Gupta vs. President of India  and Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365)

[7]  AIR 1997 SC 3011

[8] AIR 1988 SC 1115 ; 1988 SCR (2) 530.

[9] AIR 1989 SC 2039 ; 1989 SCR (3) 997.

[10] Writ Petition (Civil) 699/2016, order dated December 14 2017, two-panel bench.

[11] ,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690 see https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/sabarimala-temple/

[12] See https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-gavel-on-the-duds/301330

[13]  See https://www.vifindia.org/sites/default/files/policies-and-perspectives-ending-misuse-of-public-interest-litigation-mechanism-28