Public disinterest

When public interest litigations PILs were first introduced into Indias jurisprudence in the 1980s,they had a very clear role: to enhance access to justice on behalf of those who had been historically excluded from the justice-delivery system. Yet,over time,like many nobly intentioned innovations,they have been warped away from their original purpose; alongside those that are genuinely filed in the public interest,there are some that are filed with malice aforethought; and some that are filed frivolously,for the sheer exercise of power to bring something down or to halt some development. Anger has been building for a while at this misuse of what is a fragile part of our legal machinery. In 2006,the well-known lawyer Fali Nariman said that PILs are definitely being misused8230; The courts have realised that they need to control them. There must be a screening process. A PIL was meant for those who didnt have the wherewithal to approach the courts. Now there are corporate PILs. In June last year,Law Minister Veerappa Moily angrily declared that the government would seek compensation from those whose petitions caused public developmental work to be stopped before being dismissed. And on his first day in office,in May 2009,the current chief justice declared that he would cut down on frivolous PILs,and tighten procedures.

The Supreme Court has now moved to act on that pledge. A two-judge bench heard a petition asking that a retired UPS officer be removed from any connection with the temple in Tirupati; it dismissed the PIL,saying that there was insufficient information as to what the petitioner was. Unless the petitioner was apparently and patently above board,they said,PILs would be rejected.

This stand by the SC must be welcomed. Too often,as the judgment pointed out,behind the beautiful veil of public interest,an ugly private malice,a vested interest,or publicity-seeking is lurking. This not only adds to the enormous case backlog in the higher courts,but also,as Moily warned,risks grinding growth to a halt. The SCs decision to act as regulator is both necessary and timely.