Amid repeated warnings against the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PIL), the Supreme Court has in recent hearings expressed strong concern over what it described as "frivolous petitions". The court observed that several PILs appear to be filed without adequate research or legal grounding, sometimes seemingly aimed at attracting media attention rather than addressing genuine public causes.
The top court has, over the past years, expressed extreme displeasure with the rising trend of vague and frivolous PILs, even imposing costs on some petitioners for burdening the top court. This has been unable to deter individuals from filing such PILs.
In the past two days, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has slammed, censored and even threatened petitioners with exemplary costs on at least seven PILs he described as "poorly drafted", "haphazardly filed", "frivolous" and "attention-seeking", among others.
Here are five such instances:
Go Back To Selling Sweaters In Ludhiana
The Supreme Court witnessed dramatic scenes when a Ludhiana-based hosiery trader appeared in person to file a PIL regarding the PM CARES Fund. The Bench, led by the CJI, questioned how he had prepared a petition filled with complex legal jargon and suspected he was acting as a proxy. During questioning, the petitioner admitted he had never filed a case before and had gotten the draft typed earlier by a typist, but later prepared and modified it using artificial intelligence tools because he couldn't afford a lawyer.
Doubting whether the petition was actually drafted by the petitioner, the CJI said, "Main apka ek exam karwaunga yaha, agar apka usme 30 per cent bhi aagaya toh main maanlunga ki petition aapne banaayi hai (I will get an exam conducted for you here, if you score 30 per cent, I will believe that you have drafted the petition)."
When he failed to explain the terms used in the petition, the court concluded that the language could not be his own and dismissed the plea as vague, frivolous and irresponsible. The Bench warned him against filing such petitions again and advised him to return to his business rather than risk legal consequences. As the matter ended, the Chief Justice left the trader with a piece of blunt advice. "Jaao Ludhiana mein 2-3 aur sweater becho (Go to Ludhiana and sell 2-3 more sweaters)," he said.
Before You Come Into PIL Business, Work Hard And Practice As A Junior
In another case on Wednesday filed by a young advocate from Bihar, tense moments unfolded in the Supreme Court when the CJI asked about his experience. The lawyer told the court he had started practicing in November 2025. The Bench immediately expressed concern about inexperienced lawyers rushing to file PILs without first learning the fundamentals of legal practice.
The CJI told the advocate that the early years of law are meant for learning drafting, research and courtroom discipline, not jumping straight into PIL litigation. He even asked why the court should not suspend the lawyer's license if such petitions continue to be filed without adequate preparation.
During the exchange, the CJI asked where the advocate was from. When the lawyer responded, the Chief Justice remarked that Bihar is known for struggle and hard work, adding that the advocate should first put in serious effort to build his legal skills before approaching the court with PILs.
What's Negative About Onion, Garlic
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up an advocate Sachin Gupta, who filed a petition seeking directions to conduct research on whether onion and garlic had 'tamasic' or 'negative' content. Dismissing the petition as frivolous, the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, rebuked the lawyer, who appeared as party-in-person, for filing such a PIL.
Gupta sought a committee from top court to research the same as the presence of onion in food allegedly caused a divorce in Gujarat. He added that the issue is very common in Gujarat. "Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya? (Do you draft these petitions at midnight?)" the CJI asked.
The Supreme Court also refused to entertain three more PILs filed by the same advocate as petitioner-in-person. One sought directions to regulate the harmful content in alcohol and tobacco products. The second sought directions to ensure mandatory registration of properties. Another sought guidelines regarding the declaration of classical languages.
The Court dismissed all petitions as vague and frivolous. The Court noted that the petitions were poorly drafted, seeking vague relief. "Such frivolous matters are burdening the court," the CJI said.
'Ask Your Vendor To Fill Your Supply, Not Us'
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a PIL seeking supply of the full copy of an English daily. Questioning how a writ petition would lie against The Times of India, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the PIL filed by GS Rathore. "How does a writ lie against The Times of India? Is The Times of India a state that we can entertain a writ petition against it?" the Bench observed. While dismissing the plea, the top court told the petitioner that he needed to tell his newspaper vendor to provide him all the supplements of the daily.
Who Is Inciting You To File Such PILs?
The Supreme Court in May 2025 dismissed a PIL filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari, which sought improved safety measures for tourists visiting hilly and remote regions of India in the wake of the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed. A Bench of the CJI and Justice N Kotiswar Singh asked, "What is your purpose? What is your motive? Who is inciting you to file these kinds of PILs?" Tiwari, appearing in person, responded, "This is only for the safety of the public.
Justice Kant expressed skepticism, continuing to say, "You don't understand any sensitivity? You don't realise your responsibility? You want to become the second member of this Bar known for these kinds of PILs?"
Tiwari attempted to clarify, saying, "We are not claiming any directions against the government."
The Bench pressed further. "Please read... on what basis are you verifying this ground?" Justice Kant asked.
Tiwari argued that this was a serious and unprecedented incident. "This is the first instance, my Lord, when tourists have been targeted. We are only focused on their safety and nothing else," he said. Justice Kant, however, was unconvinced. "I think you are inviting some order with exemplary costs," he remarked.
In its final order, the court dismissed the petition, stating, "The petitioner is indulging in one or the other purported PILs which are primarily aimed at gaining publicity with no intent to serve the public cause."
