PREVENTING MISUSE
OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
The Centre has decided
not to take measures for prevention of misuse of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) at the moment. In fact, it is for the courts
to ensure that frivolous litigations in the name of PIL by persons
having vested interests are not entertained. Added to this, the
Supreme Court of India has prescribed guidelines for entertaining
PIL by the courts.
The PIL is usually
entertained by court for redressing the grievances of the down
trodden masses, public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting
social rights and vindicating public interest. The PIL has, to
some extent, served the objective of helping the poor and under
privileged for getting justice.
The Supreme Court
has laid down recently seven-point guidelines to prevent misuse
of PIL in Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
and Malik Brothers Vs. Narendra Dadhich and Others both in 1999.
The guidelines provide,
the PIL should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends
of a third party or of the party bringing the petition.
The court should
examine the previous record of public service rendered by the
organization brining PIL.
Before entertaining
a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions,
the court must carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only
when it comes to a conclusion that there is overwhelming public
interest in entertaining the petition, the court should intervene.
Even when public
interest litigation is entertained, the court must be careful
to weigh conflicting public interests before intervening.
The party at whose
instance interim orders are obtained has to be made accountable
for the consequences of the interim order. In appropriate case,
the petitioner asking for interim orders should be asked to provide
security for any increase in costs as a result of delay or any
damages suffered by the opposite party in consequence of any interim
order. Stay orders or interim order, if passed, must be moulded
to provide for restitution. If the PIL fails, the public must
be compensated for the delay in implementation of the project
and the cost escalation resulting from such delay on account of
the interim order.
If the court finds
that in the garb of PIL, actually an individual’s interest is
sought to be carried out or protected, it would be the bounden
duty of the court not to entertain such petition.
The court should
restrict the flow of cases in the name of PIL, otherwise traditional
litigation will suffer and courts of law, instead of dispensing
justice will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive
functions.
