In whose interest?

What would it take to sabotage a biotech firm’s clinical trials, to even jeopardise its plans to go public? Going by a bizarre incident exposed last week, it could take nothing more strenuous than filing a simple PIL in the Supreme Court alleging grave violations in those trials. As it happened, an Indian Express investigation showed that the “NGO”, purportedly a home for the destitute and the old, that has filed the case is not even duly registered, that even the Mumbai address it has stated in the petition leads to a private citizen who says he has nothing to do with the organisation. At first blush, this is a pointer to the lengths some will go to in pursuing corporate warfare. Much more significantly, this incident must sound a warning bell on strengthening the public interest litigation process to prevent it from being perverted for very private reasons.

When the PIL system evolved in the seventies and eighties, it addressed a glaring drawback in our legal framework. Till then, given the resources, expertise and time required to approach the courts, it was clear that the legal system could be accessed only by the economically advantaged. The PIL opened up avenues for taking up cases on behalf of aggrieved parties unable to approach the court themselves. Or seeking intervention in matters of great public import. And much good has happened since. Issues ranging from bonded labour to vehicular pollution, from corruption to the right to information have been addressed. PIL is now a well-established mechanism to keep the authorities honest, it is a valuable weapon against incursions of citizens’ fundamental rights. Increasingly rampant witticisms that PIL stands for private or political interest litigation, therefore, make it imperative that effective safeguards be devised to prevent it from becoming a veil for motivated petitioneering.

This would, most of all, involve more stringent checks on the bona fides of petitioners. It could, for instance, be ensured by making advocates on record, who alone can file petitions in the apex court, more accountable. Judges too could be alert to frivolous or overtly motivated petitions. The recent case of a fine on a petitioner should set a fine precedent.