Frivolous PILs at the receiving end ………Shibu Thomas
Mumbai: We have become extra vigilant with PILs, thenacting chief justice J N Patel had remarked while hearing PILs at the HC last month.
Following decades of PIL activism, a phenomenon that began in the 80s, legal experts say the last few years have witnessed a backlash against such petitions, many of which are increasingly frivolous and clog the judicial system. The Centres recent move, unveiling a National Litigation Policy, which among other things targets frivolous PILs with huge fines, is a step in that direction.
The Bombay high court too has cracked down on busybodies and fly-by-night activists, who saw in PILs an easy way to the four Ps – private interest, politics, paisa and publicity. Earlier this year in January, the HC saddled a citybased organisation with a fine of Rs 40 lakh after dismissing its PIL against a residential tower at Pedder Road. Though the Supreme Court subsequently reduced the fine, the HCs admonition stayed intact. The judges had noted it had become a practice to obtain information under the RTI Act and flood the court with PILs with sketchy details. The petitioners themselves do not have anything to lose. It caused harm not only to finances of the respondents but also their reputation, the court observed.
The same month the SC came up with a 10-point guideline to separate the wheat from the chaff. The norms for HCs across the country included directions to verify credentials of the petitioner and ensure there was no personal gain, private or oblique motive behind the PIL. Impose exemplary cost on busybodies and frivolous PILs, the apex court said.
Many PILs like one against the BCCI for tiring out cricket players to another protesting a proposed mosque in Nerul, were dismissed last year.
But lawyers and activists say a few black sheep should not be a reason to tar PILs as black. Frivolous petitions have been there in all forms of litigation not just PILs, says advocate Jamshed Mistry, who has represented PIL petitioners and been appointed as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in some cases. With the experience the judiciary has of PILs, it is not difficult to weed out the frivolous ones. Mistry is apprehensive of the impact on petitions that espouse a public cause. The action against frivolous PILs should not be at the cost of genuine ones. They must not act as a deterrent to a citizen who is raising a bonafide public cause.
Lawyer Y P Singh has similar concerns. He said instead of trying to guess the motivation of the person filing the petition, the focus should be on credibility of the information. PILs are a result of statutory authorities and public bodies failing to perform their duties and indulging in corruption, he said adding, If a person whose petition is dismissed is to be fined, similarly if the PIL succeeds the government officer responsible should also shell out damages.
No Substance
APR 2010 | HC fined a Juhu-based businessman Rs 5 lakh after dismissing his PIL seeking action four senior police officials for failing to prevent the 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai
JAN 2010 | HC asked Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana to pay Rs 40 lakh as legal costs after dismissing its PIL against a luxury tower
SEP 2007 | HC fined an activist Rs 25,000 after dismissing his petition on demolition of a vegetable market at Chiplun
MAY 2005 | HC dismissed a PIL that alleged then director general of police P S Pasricha had disproportionate assets and asked the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs 20,000
NOV 2005 | HC ordered independent candidate to pay Rs 25,000 for his PIL against MP Priya Dutt. He sought her disqualification for using her fathers name despite being married