Public Interest Litigations - When Dismissed?

Sonu Mehtha

Public interest litigation (PIL) denotes litigation undertaken in order to secure public interest and demonstrate the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is regarded as a relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India. In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under Article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court.

While PIL widens the scope for knocking the doors of the Judiciary it also ensures that a writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective as stated in the case of Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India and K.R. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand.

Furthermore, Krishna Iyer, J. in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sundri and Ors. v. Union of India, (1981 (1) SCC 568 p.589, para 48) in stronger terms stated: "If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him." 

While the Apex Court of India has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit or other oblique consideration shall not abuse the process of court .

In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., the Apex Court held that when the Petition is nothing but a Publicity Interest Litigation, such petitions should be condemned. PILs should not be “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend “paise income litigation”. Courts generally maintain the social balance by interfering and not turning Nelson’s eye to the matter where it’s necessary.