Listen Live
    Judge's hammer. (File)

    India’s Top Judge Flays Petitioner for “Frivolous” Litigation Suit

    © Sputnik / Vladimir Fedorenko
    Asia & Pacific
    Get short URL
    0 10

    Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the country are hailed as the shortest and surest way for a speedy solution for solving social and public grievances, but lately, Court feels that some are misusing it.

    New Delhi (Sputnik) A litigation route, once termed as an instrument to advance human rights and equality in the Indian legal system is now facing court wrath for its frivolous use by some people. Coming down heavily on a petitioner for the use of PIL method for superficial purposes, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 (approx $ 714) on a petitioner advocate on Friday.  

    READ MORE: Indian Court Upholds Death Penalty for Convicts of Infamous 2012 Delhi Gang Rape

    The Supreme Court of India dismissed a PIL against Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley which accused the senior politician that he might squander away Reserve Bank of India's capital reserve to make up for NPAs of public sector banks. A bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said "what kind of PILs are being filed" while imposing the fine on the petitioner advocate M L Sharma. The court also warned the senior advocate against filing frivolous Public Interest Litigations.

    Justice Gogoi also sternly said that it is time to ban Sharma from filing PILs in future.

    "You have done some good work and we all acknowledge that. Why are you persisting on destroying your reputation? What kind of prayer is this — to restrain Finance Minister from using capital reserves of RBI," Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said while dismissing the petition. 

    The decision of the apex court has also triggered a debate on whether such PILs are sponsored by interested parties. 

    Interestingly, advocate M L Sharma has been reprimanded due to his frivolous PILs in the past too. He was fined on two occasions by the then Chief Justice of India R M Lodha for filing such petitions. In a similar case, the Supreme Court had warned another regular PIL petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, a political leader, for filing baseless PILs. Upadhyay's petition had sought a direction to the central government to impose an upper limit of Rs 2000 ($ 29) per person per year on political donations in cash.

    READ MORE: Not So Tough: Indian Lawmakers Demand Separate Forum for Men Harassed by Wives

    The apex court while dismissing the petition today said that PILs are a boon to society but the person filing them should exercise responsibility and caution while filing them in court.

    Indian judiciary started accepting PILs in the late 80s and these petitions were distinct as it empowers any person or organization to contest a decision or working of the government by directly approaching the highest court. Some of the famous success stories of PIL include framing of guidelines against sexual harassment in workplaces by way of the Vishakha Judgement and another being the famous Ganga river cleaning petition filed Public Interest Litigant M C Mehta.


    India’s Top Court Orders Government to Frame Law to Curb Mob Lynchings
    India's Top Court Questions WhatsApp for Delay in Appointing Grievance Officer
    India's Apex Court's Validates World's Largest Biometric Identity Project
    India’s Top Court Fails to Address ‘Critical Problems’ of Giant Biometrics Cache
    petitions, public, judicial system, misconduct, interests, Supreme Court of India, India
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik