New Delhi, Dec. 15:
The Supreme Court has asked high courts to follow guidelines it had
laid down 14 years ago to “ruthlessly” weed out motivated public
interest litigation by “imposters and busybodies”.
Justices Arijit Passayat and L.S. Panta said courts were wasting
valuable time by hearing questionable PILs, adding their voice to
Monday’s ruling against judicial overreach.
But unlike that judgment by Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju,
which led several jittery judges to wash their hands of PILs this week,
the Pasayat-Panta ruling referred to do's and don’ts mentioned in a
1993
apex court verdict.
Those guidelines asked courts to scrutinise the petitioners’ locus
standi (credentials). In particular, judges must not entertain PILs on
service matters such as sackings, transfers, promotions and suspensions.
Yet, “the inflow of (such) PILs continues unabated and (is) strangely
entertained. The least high courts could do is throw them out,”
Justices Pasayat and Panta said.
“Courts have to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and
busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited
holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act
in the name of pro bono publico (for the public good), though they have
no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.”
The observations came on the same day the apex court asked a
three-judge bench to settle once and for all the question whether
judges could hear PILs on socially important issues.
The 1993 guidelines say that while hearing a PIL, high courts should
satisfy themselves that the information provided by the applicant is
correct and neither vague nor frivolous. They should also reject
petitions attacking justifiable executive actions for oblique motives.
Also, courts must not allow a petitioner to recklessly tarnish
another’s character.
A court should ensure that “under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the
Constitution for the executive and the legislature”, Justices Pasayat
and Panta said.
They came closest to echoing Monday’s judgment when they said: “It is
shocking to note that courts are flooded with (a) large number of
so-called public interest litigation (of which) a minuscule percentage
can legitimately be called PILs.
“Although the parameters of PIL have been indicated in a large number
of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions, high courts are
entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which
could be utilised for disposal of genuine cases.”
Judges should also check how the petitioner came across the official
documents attached as evidence, the bench said.
“In PILs… whenever frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession (of
official documents), the court should… not only dismiss the petitions
but also impose exemplary costs.”
The bench was disposing of a PIL by a secretary in the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission who challenged the transfer of a police
officer investigating the commission.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html
Copyright © 2006 The
Telegraph.
