Supreme Court has discretion over issuing public interest litigations

During a plea hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court stated that too many unnecessary parties had been added to the PIL

The Supreme Court (SC) rejected a plea that challenged a temporary order from the Uttarakhand High Court (HC) on Wednesday, stating that too many respondents had been included and that the court could delete unnecessary parties in the public interest litigation (PIL).

According to a report by Live Law, the plea before the HC is related to an investigation initiated by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Uttarakhand. The investigation pertains to the alleged "illegal" appointment of 396 employees and officers in the Legislative Assembly between 2001 and 2022 by the previous government and officers. On January 10, the High Court had issued an order that removed certain respondents from the case while issuing a notice.

During the hearing, the court expressed its concerns about including numerous respondents, such as Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) , Members of Parliament (MPs), and the Chief Minister, stating that such a large number of respondents was not permissible.

The court also clarified that in PIL petitions, it is at the discretion of the court to decide whom to issue notices to.

According to the report, when the petitioner's advocate on record, Ankur Yadav, argued that these parties were involved in the illegal appointment case, the court responded by saying that the petitioner could ask for anything, but it didn't necessarily mean that their request would be granted.

The SC further noted that the High Court had not dismissed the plea but had served notice to two respondents involved in the matter.

Based on these reasons, the court declined to entertain the petition. It stated that after hearing the petitioner's counsel, it was not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

The plea mentioned that several appointments were made in the Vidhan Sabha through direct recruitment, violating established practices and procedures. These violations included not publishing advertisements for ad-hoc appointments and not conducting competitive exams. The plea relied on the findings of an expert committee.

The case in point is Baij Nath Versus Union Of India And Ors, Diary no. 16550-2023d