The PIL was introduced in our judicial system in the 1980s on the plea that the “law should not be a closed shop” and access to justice should not be denied to weaker sections. It was conceptualised to protect the fundamental rights of people who otherwise lacked the capacity to assert their rights. The concept of “public injury” was evolved to allow a public spirited citizen to approach the court for the redress of public injury relating to the environment, human rights, arbitrary action of the executive, cases involving persons occupying high public offices, etc. A degree of control over environmental pollution, steps to preserve monuments like the Taj and the release of bonded labourers are a few instances of the beneficial results of the PIL.

Of late, however, the motivated PILs may be outnumbering those filed to serve the public interest. The PIL has recently been termed by the Supreme Court “publicity interest litigation”, “private interest litigation”, “politics interest litigation” and even “paisa income litigation”.

There are a large number of instances of PIL abuse, like a rival company filing a petition through a so-called public spirited citizen challenging the award of a contract, the terms of the contract being challenged, a lawyer filing a PIL in his own name and then demanding money from the rival party, a petition being filed against consideration of a lawyer being appointed as a high court judge, etc. Such instances, apart from wasting valuable time of the courts, have affected the credibility of the PIL. In a recent case, the apex court said: “The court must not allow its process (of PIL) to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interests indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves.’’

The question, therefore, is how to check motivated and frivolous public interest litigation so that the courts can pay more attention to genuine PILs. The primary obstacle is that this is a wholly unregulated field. A suitable format must be prescribed by the Supreme Court and high courts for filing of public interest petitions, which should take into consideration some important aspects. One, the case should not be in the name of the petitioner, it should be described by the particular subject for which the petition is filed. This will take care of the publicity hounds. Two, the petition should be without any personal interest. But if there is any personal interest, it must be specifically mentioned. Three, the petitioner should specify the class of persons for whose benefit the petition is being filed. Four, the petitioner must state his or her background. In case of an organisation, names of office-bearers must be stated. Five, the petitioner must give details of any other PIL filed by him, with a brief description of the order passed and cost, if any, awarded or imposed on the petitioner. Six, the petition must contain a specific statement that the petitioner is filing the PIL on his own and will bear all the litigation costs. If someone else is contributing, the petitioner must disclose the same. Seven, the source of information of the facts bearing on the plea must be disclosed. If the petitioner does not wish to disclose the source, reasons must be given. Eight, if the petition is based on a news report, it must be stated whether the petitioner has further verified the facts by personally visiting the place or by talking to people concerned. Nine, the petitioner must not rush to court. Before filing a PIL, the petitioner must send a representation to the authorities concerned to take remedial action. However, in urgent cases, petitions can be filed straightaway by giving prior notice of filing to the authorities concerned and/or their standing counsel, if any. Ten, heavy fines must be imposed on frivolous PILs.

These safeguards would filter out motivated PILs to some extent. Unless a suitable mechanism is formulated to prevent the filing of frivolous PILs, the entire object of developing this branch of law will be eroded. The weaker sections of society will end up bearing the cost.

The writer is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court