Recent months have seen substantial debate on the Supreme Court’s emerging attitude towards reforming public interest litigation (PIL), especially in light of Justice Katju’s controversial remarks. In an article in today’s Indian Express, I reflect upon this development in light of the Supreme Court’s rejection of a PIL petition on Friday, requesting it to order political parties to file tax returns. In particular, I argue that while the stress upon monetary penalties for frivolous PILs is a good thing, true reformation can only come through doctrinal developments that make the distinction between concerns of frivolous petition and concerns of appropriate representation. Certainly further distinctions may need to be made, which I have been unable to deal with in my article. For instance, Justice Katju clearly treated Common Cause as a frivolous PIL petition and it was thrown out, as I mention, because the court said that the sought relief was beyond its authority. But Justice Sema’s judgment makes for an interesting read, and perhaps it could be worth exploring distinctions in when PILs are to be rejected within the broad categories of those based on the subject-matter of the suit (broad umbrella – frivolous) and those based on the petitioner (broad umbrella – appropriate representation). Look forward to comments.
For the first time this blog says “Look forward to comments”. 🙂 Am not sure that was from the stray reader.
However, the comment is that a big factor in deciding “Frivolous” is not just the content of the appeal(that part the doctrines can handle), but the “intention” behind the litigation. And not surprisingly, it is the intention that defines how the litigant will drive the case.. determining this intention, defining it, and then penalising the intent to create frivolous litigation – we are walking on tricky ground here.
Given the current trend of decisions, doctrination which can prescribe intelligible limits of ‘activist’ activity, could be a theoretical solution. However, by accepting to choose such a mode of legal process, are we not accepting that, to some extent judiciary can ‘legislate’ and traverse into restricted territories? My only concern is: whether by doctrination we are trying to hide the inefficiency of governmental action and justifying impermissible judicial activism? Are we treating the problem rather than its cause?
Thus, rather than taking a reformative approach and consequently strengthening the ground by doctrinations, can we have a proper revision of what the judiciary has done till date and contemplate on whether it had the authority to do so and then learn something from its mistakes (if any).
Join the discussion