- Supreme Court supports well-reasoned and well-researched PILs for hearing
- CJI Surya Kant urges approaching authorities before filing PILs in court
- Court criticized lawyer for filing multiple frivolous PILs
Days after the centre argued that it's time to remove the concept of public interest litigations (PILs), the Supreme Court has asserted that the court is not against well-reasoned and well-researched PILs and will always entertain such petitions. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the remark in response to advocate Sachin Gupta, who informed the court that he wished to withdraw 26 PILs that he had filed, after an earlier rebuke by the court.
The Chief Justice told the advocate to first raise issues with the concerned authorities and file a PIL in the court only after his prayers go unheard. "You should approach the authorities, make them wiser on certain issues instead of rushing to the court. When appropriate stage will come we will entertain your petitions," the CJI said.
"We expect that a member of the bar and a person with legal knowledge like you should identify the issues with analytical approach then try to sensitise the authority, and if nothing happens then you will come to court," he added.
Read: Centre Says Time To Remove PIL As A Concept; Supreme Court Says "We're Cautious"
A bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had earlier pulled up the lawyer for filing multiple PILs, including one seeking a scientific study on whether onion and garlic contain "tamasic" (negative) energy. The petition referred to the Jain community's dietary practices, which traditionally avoids onion, garlic and root vegetables, describing them as "tamasic" food.
"Do you draft all these petitions in the middle of the night?" CJI Kant asked the petitioner, while criticising the nature of the pleas. Questioning the intent of the plea, the court asked the petitioner why he wanted to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community. It had also dismissed five PILs filed by Gupta, terming them "frivolous, vague and baseless".
During a hearing on the issue pertaining to the constitutional challenge to the ban on girls and women aged 10-50 in Kerala's Sabarimala temple, the court had also acknowledged that there are instances of frivolous PILs by persons seeking publicity. It said that it is cautious while dealing with such cases.
The acknowledgment from court came after central government questioned the relevance of PILs and asserted that it's time to remove them as a concept.
The centre had argued that PILs were conceived as an exceptional constitutional device for an era in which vast sections of the population were unable to access courts due to poverty, illiteracy, disability, detention, social exclusion, and the absence of institutional legal support.
Citing technological advancements, increased accessibility, and the presence of legal aid bodies, the centre argued, "In this day and age, why should such PILs be entertained?"
To this, Chief Justice Kant said that the courts have become very careful in entertaining PILs. "We have laid down parameters to test them. Every day, we examine the real cause. There are several factors we now apply while testing a PIL," he added.
