The Supreme Court dismissed four public interest litigation petitions filed by an advocate, observing that the petitions were frivolous and reflected a casual approach in invoking the Court’s jurisdiction. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi considered the petitions and rejected them, expressing concern about the increasing tendency of litigants to file poorly drafted and unnecessary public interest litigations that burden the Court’s docket.
During the hearing, the Court criticised the manner in which the petitions had been prepared and questioned the seriousness with which the petitioner had approached the process of filing them. Addressing the advocate, the Chief Justice remarked whether such petitions were drafted “at midnight,” indicating the Court’s view that the pleadings appeared to have been prepared without proper application of mind. The Bench also commented that many individuals were effectively running “PIL shops,” referring to the practice of filing multiple public interest petitions without sufficient legal basis.
One of the petitions sought directions for the framing of a policy related to the declaration of languages as classical languages. The petitioner asked the Court to direct authorities to establish criteria for identifying classical languages and also requested the recognition of what he described as “classical dialects.” The Court dismissed the petition, stating that it demonstrated a casual approach in drafting a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and unnecessarily burdened the Court with undesirable litigation. The Bench held that the petition was wholly misconceived and therefore liable to be dismissed.
Another petition related to beliefs associated with onions and garlic being considered “tamasic” or possessing negative energy in certain religious traditions. The Bench questioned the basis for asking the Court to examine such issues and asked why the judiciary should sit in judgment over religious sentiments relating to dietary beliefs. The Court found the plea to be baseless and declined to entertain it.
The lawyer had also filed a petition seeking the creation of a committee to draft a policy examining the feasibility of conducting a registration drive for unregistered properties across the country. While dismissing this petition, the Court observed that it reflected complete non-application of mind on the part of the petitioner while drafting the plea. The Bench described the petition as wholly frivolous and stated that it did not warrant consideration by the Court.
A fourth petition was also rejected by the Court after it found that the prayers contained in the plea were vague, evasive and lacked clarity. The Bench observed that the petition failed to raise any substantial question of law that required examination by the Court under its writ jurisdiction. As a result, it was dismissed along with the other petitions filed by the advocate.
While dismissing the petitions, the Court recorded in its order that the pleadings were drafted very poorly and were vague in nature. The Bench further stated that the petitions did not raise any substantial legal questions that would justify the Court’s intervention. Ordinarily, the Court noted that such cases could attract the imposition of exemplary costs in order to discourage the filing of frivolous litigation and to prevent misuse of the judicial process.
However, the Bench decided not to impose costs in the present case. Taking into account that the petitioner was an advocate, the Court chose to refrain from imposing financial penalties. Instead, it issued a stern warning to the lawyer to avoid filing such petitions in the future. The order emphasised that the petitioner should refrain from filing or pursuing similar pleas that lack legal merit or substance.
Through its observations, the Court reiterated concerns about the misuse of public interest litigation as a mechanism for raising issues that do not present genuine legal questions. The Bench indicated that petitions filed without careful consideration of legal principles or factual basis unnecessarily consume judicial time and resources. The dismissal of the four petitions reflected the Court’s view that such filings should not be entertained when they fail to demonstrate a clear legal issue warranting judicial intervention.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.