'Personal Interest Litigations': How PILs Became The Favourite Tool Of The Frivolous

“If in today's era, Sudama would give rice to Shri Krishna and the video would come out, a PIL would be filed in the Supreme Court and the judgment would come that something was given to Lord Krishna in corruption and Lord Krishna was doing corruption. It is better that you expressed your feelings and did not give anything," PM Modi said to Acharya Pramod Krishnam during his address at the foundation stone laying ceremony of Kalki Dham Temple on 19 February, in Uttar Pradesh.

The statement was a reference to the growing problem of misuse of public interest litigations (PILs) in the Indian legal system. Initially introduced as a pro-public measure, PILs have recently been associated with their misuse.

Why PILs were needed

PILs are those cases that are filed to secure the interests of the general public, especially socially disadvantaged groups of the population. The unique aspect of PILs is that they need not be filed by the affected party/parties. Individuals can file PILs and even the court can take suo moto litigations.

The genesis of PILs lies in the 1970s when, in many cases, securing even fundamental rights became difficult for ordinary Indians. PILs evolved to solve this problem.

Justice P N Bhagwati is credited for mainstreaming the use of PILs for public purposes. In the Hussainara Khatoon case, speedy access to justice was secured for 40,000 prisoners. Justice Bhagwati was heading the bench.

Later, in the S P Gupta case, he held that not only a harmed person, but those who are not directly impacted can invoke writ jurisdictions under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Justice Bhagwati even went to the extent of treating letters sent to the Supreme Court as writ petitions, setting a unique precedent.

Landmark changes introduced through PIL

With time, PILs became an instrument of a top-down approach:

- Though the Hussainara Khatoon case is remembered for setting free 40,000 undertrial prisoners, the Supreme Court had also said that the onus of providing free legal aid and speedy trial is on the government.

- In the Bhopal Gas tragedy case, the PIL filed by M C Mehta resulted in the introduction of absolute liability in India. It was later incorporated in the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, introduced a few months after the judgment.

- In the Vishakha case, the Supreme Court went to the extent of formulating specific guidelines for ensuring that women are not harassed at the workplace. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has genesis in Vishakha guidelines.

Hijacking of the process

Filing a PIL is an inexpensive process, and doesn’t require the petitioner to be a victim per se. The relatively low cost of filing thus led to a large number of PILs being filed for settling personal scores, obstructing development projects and policy decisions.

During Covid times, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pitched for shutting down 'PIL shops'. Even the courts, including the Supreme Court, have taken cognisance of this problem.

Costs are being imposed

In 2010, the Supreme Court expressed unhappiness over frivolous PILs and framed a 10-point guideline to be followed by courts. One of the guidelines was imposing heavy costs on frivolous petitioners. Accordingly, in 2021, the Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 in a case for misusing PIL.

In April 2022, Justice N V Ramanna, the then Chief Justice of India(CJI) said that PILs are being misused for stalling projects and putting pressure on authorities, rather than for securing justice. He said that instead of public interest, PILs are being used for serving ‘private interests’. A few weeks later, SC imposed a fine of Rs two lakhs on a petitioner for ‘wasting court’s time’.

Even the appointment of Justice D Y Chandrachud as CJI was challenged in the Delhi High Court. It was dismissed with Rs one lakh cost.

In June 2023, a CJI Chandrachud-led bench dismissed four consecutive PILs, terming them as an ‘abuse of process’.

Despite the misuse of PILs, they remain a vital tool for securing justice. However, it is essential to strike a balance between the need to protect public interest and prevent the misuse of PILs.