Perils of PIL

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been an invaluable innovative judicial remedy. It has translated the rhetoric of fundamental rights int...

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been an invaluable innovative judicial remedy. It has translated the rhetoric of fundamental rights into living reality for at least some segments of our exploited and downtrodden humanity. Thanks to the liberalisation of the rule of locus standi by our Supreme Court, several persons have been the beneficiaries: Undertrial prisoners languishing in jails for inordinately long periods, inmates of asylums and care-homes living in sub-human conditions, children working in hazardous occupations and similar disadvantaged sections. Regrettably, PIL is being abused with increasing frequency. It is forgotten that the rationale of PIL is the protection and enforcement of the fundamental rights of persons, who, on account of poverty and severe economic and social disabilities, cannot themselves approach the court for relief and to prevent the continued violation of their fundamental rights with impunity.

Always remember that PIL is not a pill for every ill. Every matter of public interest cannot be the basis of a PIL, e.g. increase in the price of onions or in railway fares or the dilapidated condition of railway stations or the Red Fort or trains not running on time. Over the years, PIL has degenerated into Private Interest Litigation, Political Interest Litigation, and above all, Publicity Interest Litigation. Weakness for publicity affects judges, lawyers and litigants alike. These 3 Ps are the perils of PIL. The latest peril in the picturesque language of Justice Pasayat is ‘‘Payaise Interest Litigation’’.

How can these perils be curbed? Firstly, by rejecting dubious PILs ‘‘at the threshold, and in appropriate case with exemplary costs’’. Secondly, in cases where important projects or socio-economic regulations are challenged after gross delay, such petitions ‘‘should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them’’. The compelling reason for rejecting such PILs at the threshold is that the mere admission of an inordinately belated PIL casts a cloud over the ongoing projects and generates uncertainty. Besides, in the interregnum, heavy expenses may have been incurred, huge liabilities run up and bona fide third party rights created. Thirdly PIL petitioners should be put on strict terms such as providing an indemnity or giving an adequate undertaking to the Court to make good the damage if PIL is ultimately dismissed. Otherwise it is free batting for the PILwallahs who can inflict incalculable damage with impunity.

PIL has rendered invaluable service and will continue to do so provided it is kept on the right track. Otherwise it will become an unruly horse. To avoid that hazard a firm sober judicial jockey in the saddle is essential.

Status quo mentality

Some minds are allergic to change. Status quo mentality is usually prevalent amongst judges and lawyers. For decades, controversy has been raging in the UK about dispensing with wigs. Some are outraged by that proposal which they believe would detract from the solemnity of judicial proceedings. Those in favour invoke pragmatic advantages such as climatic conditions. The debate continues and wigs continue to adorn or burden judicial and legal heads.

In our courts, wigs are not necessary. The dress code is a black coat, a black gown and white collar and bands. During the hot summer days a gown is uncomfortable. In some courts, especially in the North, gown is not mandatory during summer. But not so in High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat and other southern High Courts. A suggestion to dispense with gowns in the Supreme Court during summer is regarded with horror as if the dignity of the apex court will crumble if gowns are not worn.

The Chief Justice of England and Wales, Harry Woolf, was determined to simplify the language of the law, and cleanse it from sonorous Latin expressions and maxims so as to make it intelligible to the average litigant. He overcame the initial resistance to change arising from fondness for using expressions which makes one appear erudite. Today in England, the good old res ipsa loquitor and even ex facie and ex-parte are banished from usage in courts.

Story continues below this ad

Exceptionally, the wholesome trend for change is evident in Lord Puttnam’s recent report commissioned by the Hansard Society think-tank. According to Lord Puttnam, the pomp and pageantry of traditional British politics should be scrapped to stop its ‘‘Masonic rituals’’ excluding the public. His commission’s report is also expected to call for the lifting of restrictions on TV cameras at Westminster and also to end the use of what Lord Puttnam said were sometimes ‘‘stupid’’ arcane phrases which confused outsiders and in order to make the democratic process more accessible. Sensible suggestions, but the likelihood of their acceptance in the UK is remote.