PIL Misuse in India: From Social Justice to Paisa Interest Litigation
Context:
Recently, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing the Sabarimala review petitions, raised serious concerns regarding the misuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked that PILs have metamorphosed from a tool for social justice into ‘private’, ‘publicity’, ‘political’, and even ‘paisa’ (money) interest litigation.
Historical Evolution of PIL:
-
-
- PIL was conceived as a revolutionary tool in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. Its primary purpose was to provide "access to justice" for the marginalized who could not approach the court themselves.
- By relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi—which requires the petitioner to be the aggrieved party—the court allowed any public-spirited citizen to file a case on behalf of the underprivileged. Landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon (1979) and S.P. Gupta (1981) solidified this "judicial activism."
- PIL was conceived as a revolutionary tool in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. Its primary purpose was to provide "access to justice" for the marginalized who could not approach the court themselves.
-
The Current Contention:
The debate resurfaced during the Sabarimala review, where the Centre and the Bench questioned the locus standi of the Indian Young Lawyers Association. The NGO had originally challenged the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the temple.
-
-
- The Bench’s Concern: Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned what "business" the NGO had in the temple’s traditions, labeling the petition as potentially "meddling" rather than a bona fide PIL.
- The 'Paisa/Publicity' Factor: The court noted that many PILs are now triggered by newspaper articles or personal agendas rather than genuine public suffering, leading to a waste of judicial time.
- The Bench’s Concern: Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned what "business" the NGO had in the temple’s traditions, labeling the petition as potentially "meddling" rather than a bona fide PIL.
-
Critical Issues with Modern PILs:
-
-
- Frivolous Litigation: "Publicity Interest Litigations" are often filed for media attention or to settle political scores.
- Judicial Overreach: Excessive use of PILs can lead to the judiciary performing executive functions, blurring the lines of the Separation of Powers.
- Backlog of Cases: Many petitions waste the Court's time and divert attention from critical matters such as criminal justice (e.g., *suo motu* proceedings).
- Frivolous Litigation: "Publicity Interest Litigations" are often filed for media attention or to settle political scores.
-
Conclusion:
While PIL remains a "unique mechanism" for social change, the Supreme Court’s recent observations signal a shift toward stricter scrutiny. There is an urgent need to recalibrate the PIL framework—as suggested by the Centre—to ensure it remains a shield for the weak rather than a sword for the meddler.
