Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

“CASE LAWS ON IMITATION OF SUO- MOTO PIL”

SUBMITTED TOWARDS THE FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE –

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Anshuman Shadab Samar Gous
9th Semester
1373

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR PATNA 800001

0
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 08

2. Public Interest Litigation 05

3. Case Laws 07

4. Misuse and Criticism of PIL 11

5. Conclusion and Suggestions 13

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

1
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to thank our faculty of Professional Ethics, Dr. Anshuman, for his valuable

guidance and support in understanding the research topic and moving ahead with the research

work. It would have been difficult to make this project but for his help and able guidance.

I would also like to thank all those people who helped me in carrying out the project work with

ease and diligence. They were of great help in successful completion of this project. I would like

to thank my friends who assisted me in the research process and cherished me with their useful

suggestions.

Any suggestions for further improvement of the project are greatly acknowledged.

-Shadab Samar Gous

2
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

INTRODUCTION
Public Interest litigation, itself says that this is a litigation for any public interest. In the words of
some learned people we can say that public interest litigation in a litigation which can be file in
any court of law by any public spirited person for the protection of “public interest.” Now a
question comes in the mind that “what in public interest?” so answer is ‘any act for the benefit of
public is public interest.’ and those act are such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety,
constructional hazards etc. in all these activities we can clearly see the public interest. As it is
said that this petition can file any public spirited person so its mean that there should not be
interest of only himself. There in word only says that in can be possible that in that act for what
he is filing a PIL there in a small part of his benefit also hide But it’s not mean that he cannot
file. If the is interest of public then he can file public interest litigation.

Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or any act. It has been interpreted by judge
to consider the intent of public at large. This is just like a writ petition which is file in high court
or supreme court under article 226 for high court and article 32 for supreme court. When public
interest in affecting at large then this can be filed but affection on only one person is not a ground
for filing this petition.

These are the main area where any public interest litigation can be filed against State/Central
Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private party. However private party can be include in
this as a respondent after making concern state authority. This petition is filed in high court or
supreme court just a same manner as other writ petition filed. There is some fee for this purpose
and its hearing proceeds is also just like other cases. In early 90’s a judge had treated a
complaining post card as public interest litigation so we can say that a latter also may be treated
as writ of public interest litigation some other case are also there which we will discuss in this
project.
In India the first case of PIL was filed in 1976 named Majdur kaamgar sabha v Abdul bhai
Faizulla bhai. Where Krishna Iyar allowed a group of people to file petition on behalf of others.
The rights of the member were violated Krishna Iyar held either one individual or group of
individuals together can come to the court. But some time misuse of this petition also comes into
picture. This is the problem in PIL that many times this misused by some people. There are
various cases in which PIL is misused as S.P. Gupta v union of India. In this can misuse of PIL
was cane into picture. and the secondly in the case of Shushes Kumar v Union of India. in this
case there was a manager in a company and his boss faired him and he gave a PIL in spite of not
being any ground of PIL.
3
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

In the project, the researcher aims

 To study the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

 To study the conflict & priority between PIL and ordinary legal remedy.

 To study the legal provisions as to enforcement of the Public Interest Litigation.

HYPOTHESIS

For the project research, the researcher assumes that Privacy is a fundamental human right which
must be enjoyed by every person. Individuals must be protected against intrusion into his
personal life or affairs or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of
information. Media violates privacy in day-to-day reporting, like overlooking the issue of
privacy to satisfy morbid curiosity & reap commercial benefits.

Research Methodology

For the project research, the researcher has primarily relied upon the Doctrinal method of
research.

A Doctrinal Research means a research that has been carried out on propositions by the way of
analyzing the existing provisions, and cases by applying the reasoning power. It includes
conventional methods of research like library based research, searching upon some texts
(writings or documents), secondary data, etc.

The quality of doctrinal research depends upon the source materials on which the researcher
depends for his study.

4
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

NATURE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Public Interest Litigation is directly filed by an individual or group of people in the Supreme
Court and High Courts and judicial member. The person who is filing the petition must not have
any personal interest in the litigation, this petition is accepted by the court only if there is interest
of large public involved. Generally this petition is filed by a public spirited person or
organisation, if it was felt that certain interests are undermined by the government; In such a
situation, the court directly accepts the public interest litigation. It is a new legal horizon in
which a court of law can initiate and enforce action to serve and secure significant Public Interest

In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani had filed a petition regarding the condition of the prisoners
detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in the court. The special thing about this
petition was that it was not filed by any single prisoner, rather it was filed by various prisoners of
the Bihar jail. The case was filed in the Supreme Court before the bench headed by Justice
P.N.Bhagwati. This petition was filed by the name of the prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, hence
the petition came to be known as Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar1. In this case, the
Supreme Court upheld that the prisoners should get benefit of free legal aid and fast hearing.
Because of this case 40,000 prisoners, whose suits were pending in the court, were released from
the jail. There after many cases like this have registered in the supreme court. It was in the case
of SP Gupta vs Union of India that the Supreme Court of India defined the term "public interest
litigation" in the Indian Context.

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is in consonance with the principles enshrined in
Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help
of law. Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. After the
emergency era the high court reached out to the people, devising a means for any person of the
public to approach the court seeking legal remedy in cases where the public interest is at stake.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in
court. Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as a usual legal case; there have been instances when
letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been taken up as PILs and heard.

1
(1980) 1 SCC 98
5
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

The Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi seeking
enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who were living
in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar 2, the court treated a
letter addressed to a judge of the court by the Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh, Bihar as
a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and Others3,
the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of
Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court alleging human-rights violations of Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) detainees; it was treated as a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Writing the judgment in a case concerning sewage workers, Justice Singhvi stated: “The most
unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of the state i.e., the
judiciary issues directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life, and liberty no longer
remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicap of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, and
directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of
the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or
overreach”.

The bench clarified that it was necessary to erase the impression on some that the superior
courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for the poor (who could not seek protection of their rights),
exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction. The judges said it was the duty of the
judiciary (like that of the legislative and executive constituents of the state) to protect the rights
of every citizen and ensure that all lived with dignity.

Such cases may be filed in the public interest when victims lack the capability to commence
litigation, or their freedom to petition the court has been encroached. The court may proceed suo
motu, or cases can proceed on the petition of an individual or group. Courts may also proceed on
the basis of letters written to them, or newspaper reports.

2 1982 SCC (Cri) 511 : AIR 1983 SC 339

3
1995 KHC 486 : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74 : 1995 (3) SCC 743 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 1996 SC 2193
6
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

CASE LAWS ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

M.C. Mehta, a lawyer by profession, acted in such way that by looking to the number of PIL
filed by him, it will be clear that many landmark judgements in various fields mainly
environment was obtained by him. Some of them include;

1. Oleum gas leakage case

2. Child labor case
3. Gamma rays case
4. Delhi vehicular pollution case
5. Ganga pollution case and so on

There are many cases involved in Public Interest Litigation as one of the main causes for the case
and its judgement. In the case of Sheela Barse Vs State of Maharashtra, the case dealt with a
historical judgement on the issue of custodial violence against women. The Court held that there
must be separate police lockups for women convicts to protect them from further trauma and
brutality. In the case of M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India, it leads to the landmark judgment which
lashed out at the civic authorities allowing untreated sewage from Kanpur tanneries making its
way into the Ganges.

In the case of Paramanand Katara Vs Union of India, Supreme Court held that in the field of
Public Interest Litigation, which was filled by a human rights activist for general public interest
that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical profession to give medical aid to
injured person as soon as possible without waiting for any procedural formalities.

The court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfills some basic needs for PIL as the letter is
addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited individual and a social action group for the
enforcement of legal or Constitutional rights to any person who are not able to approach the
court for redress. Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition:

 Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme court.

 Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High court.
 Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the court of Magistrate.

7
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 4

This case was against sexual harassment at work place, brought by Bhanwari Devi to stop the
marriage of a one year old girl in rural Rajasthan. Five men raped her. She faced numerous
problems when she attempted to seek justice. Naina Kapoor decided to initiate a PIL to challenge
sexual harassment at work place, in the supreme court.

The judgement of the case recognized sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental
constitutional rights of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21. The guidelines also directed for
sexual harassment prevention.

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India 5

In this case, the court passed three landmark judgements and several orders against polluting
industries which were more than 50,000 in the Ganga basin. The court shut down numerous
industries and allowing them to reopen only after controlled pollution. At the end, millions of
people escaped air and water pollution in the Ganga basin, including eight states in India.

PIL is a rule of law declared by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing the
petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for the public
interest and not as a frivolous litigation for pecuniary gain.

The 38th Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial
"fines" would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PILs. His statement was widely welcomed,
because the instance of frivolous PILs for pecuniary interest has increased; a bench of the high
court has also expressed concern over the misuse of PILs. The bench has issued a set of
guidelines it wanted all courts in the country to observe when entertaining PILs.

In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the
misuse of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we
may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some balance restored
4
AIR 1997 SC 3011

5
AIR 1987 SC 965
8
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

in recent times”.[citation needed] In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union
Ministry of Law and Justice is preparing a law regulating PILs. Helping the ministry was former
Chief Justice of India late P. N. Bhagwati who pioneered PIL. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, was
also part of it till his death on 4 December 2014.

The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of
chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate
and take inconsistent positions”. Since the Amar Singh petition was vague, not in conformance
with the rules of procedure and contained inconsistencies, the court did not explore his primary
grievance (infringement of privacy). One positive outcome of the case was the court’s request
that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines to prevent interception of telephone
conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case, Reliance Communications acted upon a
forged request from police.

In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India6, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation in
business conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of
asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high court dismissed the
petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote
their products as asbestos substitutes. A similar petition was then submitted to the Supreme
Court. The plea was dismissed, and the plaintiff was assessed a fine of ₹ 100,000.

The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a
rival industrial group, which was interested in banning of the activity of mining and
manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was made by it to secure a ban on these activities
with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are
some of the suitable substitute for asbestos. Thus it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of
causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of
court”. The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to punish the petitioners under
the Contempt of Courts Act; it must “ensure that such unscrupulous and undesirable public
interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the valuable time of the courts
as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system”.
6
2012 (12) SCC 599
9
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that
would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless
allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies”, a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and
S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment.

The bench overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, which set aside the
services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed by the Tirumala Venkateswara
Temple. The high court’s decision concerned a public-interest petition filed by S. Mangati Gopal
Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the loss of “300 gold
dollars” from the temple and should not continue in office. The Supreme Court found that the
high court decided against the accused with little information about Reddy himself.

“The parameters within which PILs can be entertained have been laid down. The credentials, the
motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard.
Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold”, the judgment stated.

As for why it is skeptical about a large number of PILs, the bench spoke for the Supreme Court
when it said that the “judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of
public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. This
Court (Supreme Court of India) must not allow its process to be abused for oblique
considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind”.

10
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

MISUSE AND CRITICISM OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

In the last few years, there have been serious concerns about the use and misuse of public interest
litigations and these concerns have been expressed at various levels. The time has come for a
serious re-examination of the misuse of public interest litigation. There are numerous cases in the
history of law where PIL has been misused. As in the case of Shubhash Kumar V state of Bihar.
In this case there was a prole who was fired by the director of the company so he filed a PIL that
this company is acting something wrong so this should be tried. So in this case by the fact of the
case we can see that this is purely misuse of PIL nothing else. As same in the case of S.P. Gupta
V Union Of India. There was also misuse of PIL came into picture. as per as in the case of Sheela
Barse v. State of Maharashtra 7. In this case, on receiving a letter from the petitioner, a journalist,
the Supreme Court took notice of the complaint of custodial violence to women prisoners in the
lock-up in the city of Bombay. The court issued various directions which included the following:
“Four or five police lock-ups should be selected in reasonably good localities where only female
suspects should be kept and they should be guarded by female constables”. This misuse comes in
various forms. The first is what Justice Pasayat in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of
W.B. Described as “busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners who
approach the court with extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity”. Such litigation is
described as “publicity interest litigation” and the courts have been fraught with such litigation.
How else would one describe a public interest litigation filed for “reliefs” such as that the higher
judiciary would be provided with private planes and special transport? A petition to this effect
was filed by a lawyer practicing in U.P. As could be expected, it was summarily rejected, but not
before the gentleman had his day in the sun, however momentary it was. Examples of this kind
of litigation are innumerable. No sooner has an event of public interest or concern occurred than
there is a race to convert the issue into a PIL.

Cautioning the High Courts on the misuse of the PIL, the Bench said “PIL is a weapon which has
to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see
that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or
publicity seeking is not lurking”. The Bench made it clear that a PIL should be aimed at redressal
7
(1983) 2 SCC 96
11
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal
vendetta. It observed that it should not be allowed to become “publicity interest litigation or
private interest litigation or politics interest litigation or, the latest trend, praise income litigation.
The laudable concept of PIL was for extending the long arm of sympathy to the poor, ignorant
and oppressed”, the Bench said and added the “brand name” should not be allowed to be used by
imposters and meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. Secondly in
sheela barse v union of India no PIL to protect the interest of criminals be filed.

In S.P. Gupta v union of India P.N. Bhagwati in the instant case lays down certain specific case
where PIL cannot be entertained namely.

1. In the person is engaged in socio- economic crime then there is no PIL.

2. If offence is against the woman, no PIL should be filed on behalf of the criminal.

Recently in the territory of India many cases from the area of PIL has come into picture which
has been filed in the court of law. This project put lights in few of the cases related to PIL. As in
2008 a case was decided by Supreme Court named Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union
of India8 in this PIL Petitioner filed public interest litigation praying to court to enact a Road
Safety Act in view of the numerous road accidents but in this case court held that court cannot
direct legislation A perusal of the prayers made in this writ petition clearly shows that what the
petitioner wants the courts to do is legislation by amending the law, which is not a legitimate
judicial function so this Petition was dismissed by court of law.

Secondly Sanganmal Pandey v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad Court on
Saturday stayed construction activities from Jail Road trisection to Kanshiram memorial till
September 22 on a PIL alleging the Uttar Pradesh government’s move was affecting the green
belt in the area. A division bench comprising Pradeep Kant and Rituraj Awasthi passed this
directive on a PIL filed by a local lawyer Sangamlal Pandey. Earlier, on September 17, the apex
Court had disposed off Pandey’s petition allowing him to file the PIL in the High Court. In his
PIL, Pandey had contended that the government move was not environment-friendly and
construction work was going on in the green belt land.

8
AIR 2008 SC 2016
12
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS

So by the all discussion this is conclusion that Public interest litigation is a process to put any
public problem in the eyes of law but as it is said that nothing can be fully good so there are
some good feature then some bad are also their as we have discussed about the misuse of PIL. In
the misuse of PIL it can be possible that any person of society send PIL to tease any other person
of the society in Indian law, means litigation for the protection of public interest. It is litigation
introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other
private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the person who is
the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public Interest
Litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism. Such cases may
occur when the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation or his
freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take
cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any
public-spirited individual.

A judicial system can suffer no greater lack of credibility than a perception that its order can be
flouted with impunity. It serves no purpose to issue some high profile mandamus or declaration
that can remain only on paper. Although usually the Supreme Court immediately passes interim
orders for relief, rarely is a final verdict given, and in most of the cases, the follow-up is poor.

Public Interest Litigants, all over the country, has not taken very kind towards various court
decisions. It is a welcome move from the part of the judiciary that no one in the country even PIL
activists must be responsible and accountable. For instance, mass petitions were filed in many
rape cases as well as murder cases in our country due to the lack of interest from the part of
investigating agencies and even from the part of Government. The Supreme court has also set up
legal aid in favour of the millions of people in India, and it also plays an inevitable role in the
field of PIL in expanding its scope so that it turns to be a counter balance to the lethargy as well
as inefficiency of the executive. Hence, the machinery governing Public Interest Litigation is
undergoing a serious reconstruction or rethinking for possible developments in this field so that
the people deserved will be awarded justice as well as the people who abuses it will be punished
accordingly.
13
 Case Laws on imitation of suo moto PIL

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Sebastian Paul, Law, Ethics and profession, 3rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, Gurgaon.

 Professional misconduct & Related Laws (Report), 2010, Oxford University Press, New
York.

 M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, 12th Edition, 2013, Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow.

 D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol.III, 2008, 8 th Edition,

LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.

 Bipan Chandra, India after Independence 1947-2000. New Delhi, 2000.

 Subhash C. Kashyap, Our Constitution-An Introduction to India’s Constitution

and Constitutional Law, National Book Trust, India, 2005.

 Jain, M.P. (2006). Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History (6th Ed.),

Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur.

 Justice G.P.Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th Edition (2012), Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur.

 www.legalserviceindia.com

 www.presscouncil.nic.in

 www.nbanewdelhi.com

 www.manupatra.com

 www.upcounsel.com

 www.lawteacher.net

 www.indiankanoon.org

14