A Supreme Court Vacation Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli asked the PIL litigant to pay Rs. 18 lakh for indulging in a “luxury litigation”.
- However, the court later, in its order, slashed the amount to Rs. 2 lakh on the request of the litigant’s counsel.
- The Bench observed, that the highly derogatory practice of filing frivolous petitions encroach on valuable judicial time which can otherwise be utilised for addressing genuine concerns.
Previous PIL cases
- In a February 2022 judgment in the case Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Chetan Kamble, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. had acknowledged that thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
- In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti vs State of Rajasthan case, the apex court had emphasised how such petitions bring justice to people who are handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy.
Directions on PIL
The Supreme Court had also issued eight directions in its Uttaranchal State Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) judgment to help constitutional courts separate genuine PIL petitions from the barmy ones. Some of these directions are:
- Verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining the plea;
- Check the correctness of the contents; ensuring the petition involves issues of larger public interest, gravity and urgency which requires priority;
- Ensure there is no personal gain, or oblique motive behind the PIL;
- Ensure that it is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.
GS TIMES UPSC PRELIMS & MAINS CURRENT AFFAIRS BASED BASICS DAILY ONLINE TEST CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ FOR STATE CIVIL SERVICES
