: PILs are definitely being misused... The courts have realised that they need to control them. There must be a screening process. A PIL was meant for those who didn’t have the wherewithal to approach the courts. Now there are corporate PILs.” So said Fali S. Nariman, eminent senior counsel and MP in ‘Idea Exchange’ (IE, September 3).
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.’’
