#008 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

The Supreme Court of India, in its Judgement dated Dec. 14, 2007, (Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary, M.P.S.C. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others) reiterated the guidelines given by it in Gurpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2005 (5) SCC 136).

"The scope of entertaining a petition
styled as a public interest litigation, locus
standi of the petitioner particularly in matters
involving service of an employee has been
examined by this court in various cases. The
Court has to be satisfied about (a) the
credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie
correctness or nature of information given by
him; (c) the information being not vague and
indefinite. The information should show
gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to
strike balance between two conflicting
interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to
indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and (ii)
avoidance of public mischief and to avoid
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
In such case, however, the Court cannot afford
to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to
see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the
sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
Executive and the Legislature. The Court has
to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters
and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers
impersonating as public-spirited holy men.
They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono
Publico, though they have no interest of the
public or even of their own to protect.

As noted supra, a time has come to weed
out the petitions, which though titled as public
interest litigations are in essence something
else. It is shocking to note that Courts are
flooded with large number of so called public
interest litigations where even a minuscule
percentage can legitimately be called as public
interest litigations. Though the parameters of
public interest litigation have been indicated
by this Court in large number of cases, yet
unmindful of the real intentions and
objectives, High Courts are entertaining such
petitions and wasting valuable judicial time
which, as noted above, could be otherwise
utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though
in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR 1999 SC 114),
this Court held that in service matters PILs
should not be entertained, the inflow of so-
called PILs involving service matters continues
unabated in the Courts and strangely are
entertained. The least the High Courts could
do is to throw them out on the basis of the
said decision. The other interesting aspect is
that in the PILs, official documents are being
annexed without even indicating as to how the
petitioner came to possess them. In one case,
it was noticed that an interesting answer was
given as to its possession. It was stated that a
packet was lying on the road and when out of
curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found
copies of the official documents. Whenever
such frivolous pleas are taken to explain
possession, the Court should do well not only
to dismiss the petitions but also to impose
exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the
Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and
dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that
the message goes in the right direction that
petitions filed with oblique motive do not have
the approval of the Courts."