NEW DELHI: Cautioning against frivolous PILs which promote personal, business or political agenda, the Delhi High Court has said courts must carefully weigh if the person before it has any personal motive or oblique consideration.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said motivated public interest litigations not only pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process and consume precious judicial time but also have the propensity of endangering the credibility of other institutions and undermining public faith in democracy.
The “attractive brand name of PIL should not be used for suspicious products of mischief” and should be aimed at genuine public wrong, it said. “It will be a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which upon due scrutiny are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda.
“PIL which have been filed with oblique motive seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the Court to devote its time and resources to cases which legitimately require attention,” said the bench, also comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad, in a recent order.
The court remarked that while PIL was conceptualised as a weapon to secure justice for the voiceless, it was being plagued by frivolous PILs which are consuming considerable and precious time.
“The Apex Court said that Public Interest Litigation has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking... Courts must be careful to see that a member of the public who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration,” said the court.
The court made the observations while hearing a PIL by a woman, who claimed to be a social worker, against an alleged unauthorised construction in the city. The court said there was no reason to doubt the stand taken by the MCD and questioned the bonafide of the petitioner.