Beware private malice behind veil of public interest: court

Beware private malice behind veil of public interest: court

High Courts cautioned against entertaining PIL recklessly
PIL should be used with great care, circumspection
It should not be used for suspicious products of mischief

Even as a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recently decided to lay down guidelines for entertaining public interest litigation petitions, a two-judge Bench has cautioned the High Courts against entertaining such pleas recklessly.
The Bench, comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, pointed out that the court had already laid down basic parameters for entertaining PIL pleas. But the High Courts continued to entertain them, ignoring the parameters. Wastage of time
Writing the judgment, Mr. Justice Pasayat said:
“It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of genuine litigants.
“We spare no effort in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard.”
The Bench said: “While genuine litigants with legitimate grievances are standing in a long queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others break the queue muffling their faces by wearing the mask of PIL and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts.”
As a result of PIL, “the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.”
The Bench said PIL was a weapon which should be used with great care and circumspection, and the judiciary had to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity monger was not lurking.
“PIL is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of PIL should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.”“Prevent crafty invasions”
The Bench said: “Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”
In the instant case, acting on a PIL petition from Prem Chandra Mishra and others on land allotment, the Patna High Court passed an order giving certain directions. In a special leave petition, Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd challenged this order. The apex court Bench set it aside and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.