A view of Delhi High Court.
| Photo Credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
The Delhi High Court has observed that public interest litigations (PILs) which have been filed with “oblique motive seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system” by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention.
A Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked that while PIL was conceptualised as a weapon to secure justice for the voiceless, today courts are plagued by frivolous PILs which are consuming considerable and precious time.
The High Court made the observations while hearing a PIL by a woman, who claimed to be a social worker, against an alleged unauthorised construction in the city.
The High Court said the petitioner, for “reasons not known”, continued to press her plea despite the stand of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) that the construction was as per its permission and that it was “keeping a vigil”.
Noting that there was no reason to doubt the stand taken by the MCD, the High Court questioned the bonafide of the petitioner.
“The present writ petition though styled as a PIL is, in fact, the second petition filed by the Petitioner complaining about the unauthorised construction over the subject property,” the High Court said.
The High Court said it was desisting from imposing costs on the petitioner, who is a lady.
“Public Interest Litigations which are motivated pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process and also have the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy and the rule of law,” the High Court observed.
It reminded the petitioner of an observation made by the Supreme Court that PIL has to be used with “great care and circumspection, and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking…”.
“Courts must be careful to see that a member of public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration,” the High Court noted.
