The Misuse of PIL, and the Remedies

In one line

The jurisdiction that let in the bonded labourer also let in the rival trader, the political opponent and the publicity seeker, and the court has had to build a filter it did not originally have.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: misuse of public interest litigation occurs where the jurisdiction is invoked otherwise than for the benefit of a person or class who cannot approach the court. Its recognised forms are private interest disguised as public, publicity interest, political interest, commercial rivalry, extortion, and frivolous or ill-informed petitions. The remedies are dismissal for want of bona fides, exemplary costs, verification of credentials and contents before entertaining, rules framed by the High Courts, prosecution for perjury in a proper case, and judicial restraint in the kind of matter entertained.

The forms of misuse

1. Private interest in public dress. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.

Facts. The petitioner filed a public interest petition under Article 32 alleging that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company were polluting the Bokaro river by discharging slurry, and sought directions restraining them. He also asked, by way of interim relief, to be permitted to collect the slurry himself. The pollution boards showed that directions had been issued and permissions granted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974.

Held. The right to life under Article 21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air, and a citizen may move the court under Article 32 to remove pollution detrimental to the quality of life. But the petition was dismissed with costs of five thousand rupees: it was not a genuine public interest litigation, having been brought to satisfy a personal grudge and to secure the petitioner's own interest in obtaining slurry, and public interest litigation cannot be invoked to satisfy a personal grudge or enmity.

Why it matters here. It is the model case, because the Court declared a new environmental right and dismissed the petitioner with costs in the same judgment. That combination is what makes it usable in an answer: the jurisdiction is valuable and the abuse of it is separately punishable.

2. The busybody and the meddlesome interloper. Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305.

Facts. An advocate who was a stranger to the proceedings sought to intervene in the Bofors investigation while it was still at the stage of investigation, invoking the public interest jurisdiction.

Held. He had no locus standi: though a member of a noble profession, he had no direct interest in the investigation and suffered no special loss, and the doors of the court would not be opened to him at that stage. Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest may move the court in public interest, and petitions by busybodies, meddlesome interlopers and persons with an oblique motive must be rejected.