Rs 39 Crore Uco Bank Profit Likely

The slew of public interest cases which bedevilled the power projects of Cogentrix and Enron corporations has again underlined the need for discipline in the court process. The fears expressed by some judges and jurists when the doors of the courts were thrown open to activists in 1982 seem to have come true, looking at some recent instances of public interest litigation (PIL). However, the misuse of PIL is not difficult to control if the warnings sounded in the 1982 judgment (S P Gupta vs Union of India) are heeded.

In that judgment, which is called the "Charter of PIL", the seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had asked the courts to see that the petitioners were taking recourse to PIL out of genuine motives. It said: "We must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration." The court was aware that political pressure groups which could not achieve their aims through the administrative or political process might use the courts to further their aims.

 

It had also asked the judges to confine the exercise to cases where a legal wrong is caused to a determined class or group of persons. No third party should be allowed to espouse the cause of another if the latter can move the court on his own. Another test before admitting a PIL is that the petitioner must have sufficient interest in the matter. What is "sufficient interest" is difficult to define. The court said that a judge, with his experience, should not find it too difficult to see whether the petitioner has sufficient and worthy interest.

Despite these red signals, PIL has been misused many times leading the court to take penal action against the petitioners. In Schidanand Pandey vs West Bengal, the petitioner filed a PIL against a five-star hotel alleging that it would disturb the animals. Rejecting the petition, the court remarked that "today public interest litigants rush to court to file cases under the attractive name of PIL. They must inspire confidence in the courts and among the public. They must be above suspicion."

In Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar (1991), it was alleged that Tisco