Revision as of 14:02, 16 April 2015

Frivolous PILs

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009 2010

SC lays down guidelines to prevent frivolous PILs

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: Despite the undeniable social benefit of public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court has expressed concern over gross abuse of this instrument in courts in the recent past.

To curb PILs from being hijacked by vested interests, a Bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and M K Sharma has laid down a 10-point stringent guideline for all high courts, including imposing exemplary cost on busybodies and frivolous PIL petitioners.

Terming PIL jurisdiction as extremely important, the Bench said guidelines were necessary to preserve the purity and sanctity of PILs. Highlights of the guidelines are:

Encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and discourage and curb those filed for extraneous considerations.

Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each HC to properly formulate rules for encouraging genuine PILs and discouraging PILs filed with oblique motives. HCs should frame rules in this regard within three months.

Verify credentials of petitioner before entertaining a PIL.

Ascertain correctness of facts mentioned in PIL.

Check whether substantial public interest is involved.

Give priority to PILs involving larger public interest.

Ensure that the PIL seeks redressal of a genuine public harm or injury and that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind it.

'Litigants should approach the government before courts'

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

‘Approach govt before courts’

Will Not Allow PIL Petitioners To Bypass Authorities, Says SC Bench

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: After warning that those filing frivolous PILs would be saddled with deterrent fines, the Supreme Court on Friday said even genuine PIL petitioners would have to first seek justice from the executive.

“No one, howsoever genuine their cause may be, should approach the courts with a PIL without even sending a notice to the authorities for redressal of the grievance,” said a bench comprising CJI S H Kapadia and Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar.

When counsel for NGO Ankush, which had sought implementation of road safety measures by the Andhra Pradesh government, said it had no personal interest and that it was acting in public interest, the CJI asked: “Where is your notice to the concerned authorities demanding justice in this issue?”

“A proper procedure has to be followed by the courts for entertaining PILs. There is no way that a petitioner, who comes straight to the court with a PIL, will be entertained,” said the CJI, speaking for the bench.

Addressing a long standing grievance of the executive that the judiciary has been encroaching into its turf, Justice Kapadia said: “The PIL petitioners have been moving the courts straightaway without even bringing the problem to the notice of the authorities. And the courts have been entertaining these PILs, virtually taking over the function of the authorities. We will not allow such bypassing of the authorities to take place any more.”

The new rules would drastically cut down the rate of filing of PILs in the court. For, while those filing frivolous ones would be scared of being saddled with heavy costs, which the CJI had said on Thursday would be utilized for improving infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary, even genuine PILs would not be entertained if the petitioners have not brought their problem to the notice of the concerned authorities for justice.

Source of funding litigation is relevant

The Times of India Apr 06 2015

Abhinav Garg

Show source of PIL funding: HC

In an unusual move, the Delhi high court has asked a lawyer to place his source of funding for every PIL either filed by him or where he has appeared on behalf of any petitioner. A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw asked advocate Gaurav Bansal to “file an affidavit which should disclose the source of funding for all the (public interest litigation) PILs which he is preferring either in his own name or as an advocate for other parties“.

The bench has of late been taking a very strict stand while entertaining PILs and has on many occasions pulled up petitioners for “trying to settle private scores“ by using the court as a platform. But even by its tough standards, the court's decision to ask for funding source of a lawyer caught everyone by surprise. Bansal is representing NGO MediaWatch-India, which has filed a PIL against the Centre and six private DTH operators, claiming these indulge in “illegal and exploitative practices“ by carrying 24x7 ads and even FM radio on their channels.

In December last year, the high court had issued a notice to the ministry of information and broadcasting, and the DTH operators on the PIL, seeking an answer to the allegations.

When the next hearing took When the next hearing took place earlier this month, one of the operators--Tata Sky--highlighted before the bench that the NGO and Bansal were hiding all the facts. While the petitioners alleged their complaint to TRAI in April 2014 was ignored, TRAI circulated a consultation paper on the topic in August and sent its recommendations to the government.

On being confronted by the court, Bansal, whose wife incidentally is secretary of the NGO, maintained that all parties must be directed to file an affidavit on the merits of the case, alleging that the business house is trying to deflect the main issue. Howev er, the court was not impressed and pointed out it wouldn't have issued a notice last year had it known these facts.

“A petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and more so a petitioner in a petition filed in public interest has to disclose all material facts and if does not do so runs the risk of the petition being dismissed on this ground only and cannot insist on this court nevertheless enquiring into the matter in pub lic interest in his petition. We cannot be unmindful of the rampant misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and which has already been noticed by the Supreme Court and this court,“ the court observed.