The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation petition that raised concerns about deaths caused by neglected public infrastructure and sought judicial directions to address the issue. During the hearing, the Court also cautioned young lawyers against the growing trend of filing public interest litigations primarily for media attention rather than focusing on developing their professional legal skills.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petition had been filed to highlight incidents in which people allegedly lost their lives due to poorly maintained public infrastructure, particularly unsafe road conditions. The petitioner referred to several incidents to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue, including a case where a truck reportedly fell into an uncovered pit on a public road, resulting in fatalities. It was argued before the Court that the negligent maintenance of civic infrastructure by public authorities had become a widespread problem requiring judicial intervention.
During the proceedings, the bench examined the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and questioned the necessity of invoking the Court’s public interest jurisdiction in the matter. The Court asked why the petitioner had not filed a complaint against the authorities responsible for the specific incident mentioned in the petition instead of approaching the Supreme Court directly through a public interest litigation. The bench suggested that appropriate remedies could have been pursued against the concerned authorities through available legal mechanisms.
The Court also sought information about the professional experience of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. When the counsel informed the bench that she had been practising law for four years, the Chief Justice made remarks cautioning young lawyers about the practice of filing petitions that appear to be motivated by the desire for publicity. The Court emphasized that young members of the legal profession should concentrate on developing their skills and understanding of the law rather than seeking visibility in national media through the filing of public interest litigations.
The bench expressed concern about a recent trend in which young lawyers were drafting petitions that lacked sufficient legal substance or clarity, apparently with the intention of gaining attention on social media platforms and in the media. The Court indicated that such practices could undermine the seriousness of the legal profession and the proper use of the public interest litigation mechanism.
The Chief Justice remarked that lawyers who are serious about the profession should focus on learning and practising law rather than attempting to gain publicity. The Court stressed that the desire to appear in national media should not become a motivating factor for initiating litigation, especially in matters brought under the jurisdiction of public interest litigation.
After considering the contents of the petition, the bench concluded that the petition itself was vague and evasive. The Court observed that the petition contained multiple broad prayers that were not capable of being realistically implemented or supervised by a court. According to the bench, the nature of the relief sought in the petition was such that it would not be feasible for the Court to issue effective directions or oversee compliance.
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court decided not to entertain the petition. The bench dismissed the public interest litigation on the ground that it lacked sufficient clarity and substance and that the prayers contained in the petition were impractical for judicial consideration.
Through its remarks during the hearing, the Court highlighted concerns about the misuse of public interest litigation. The observations of the bench emphasized that the jurisdiction of public interest litigation is meant to address genuine issues affecting the public at large and should not be invoked casually or for reasons unrelated to legitimate public interest.
The dismissal of the petition was accompanied by the Court’s caution to young lawyers to focus on building their professional competence and to avoid filing petitions that appear to be motivated by publicity. The Court’s remarks reflected its concern about maintaining the seriousness and credibility of the public interest litigation mechanism within the judicial system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.