PIL has become 'Private Interest Litigation', 'Publicity Interest Litigation', says Supreme Court
The 9-judge Bench expresses serious concern over the misuse of Public Interest Litigation
Expressing serious concern over the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said PILs have now become 'Private Interest Litigation', 'Publicity Interest Litigation', 'Paisa Interest Litigation' and 'Political Interest Litigation'.
On the 11th day of hearing on issues arising out of petitions seeking review of the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict that set aside the restriction on entry of women aged between 10-50 years into the famous Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala hilltop in Kerala, a nine-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned the motive of the Indian Young Lawyers Association over its 2006 PIL challenging the age-old practice.
The Bench – which also included Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi – posed a series of questions to advocate Ravi Prakash Gupta who represented the Indian Young Lawyers Association.
The top court questioned the locus of the NGO as also its religious belief and conscience.
As Gupta submitted that the PIL was based on four newspaper articles published in June 2006, the CJI said the PIL should have been dismissed outright.
“How did the articles give the cause of action to file a PIL? It’s easy to get articles written for the sake of filing PILs,” the CJI said.
Justice Nagarathna added, “We have been entertaining PILs in High Courts and in the Supreme Court for the general public who need it. Not for articles being written in newspapers.
“Public Interest Litigation has now become Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation, Paisa Interest Litigation and Political Interest Litigation. All are called PILs, but we entertain only real and genuine PILs,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The CJI receives hundreds of letters daily, questioning whether they could all be turned into PILs. The hearing is under way, she added.
"Are you the chief priest of the country?" the Bench told the Association as it slammed it over its 2006 PIL challenging the restriction on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple.
Terming the PIL as an "abuse of process of law", the Bench said the Association should work for the bar and the welfare of its younger members rather than filing such PILs.
By a 4:1 verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by the then CJI Dipak Misra had on September 28, 2018 allowed entry of women, irrespective of their age, into the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, overturning the age-old tradition that restricted the entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years.
Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone woman judge on the Bench, had delivered a dissenting verdict and supported the practice.
While delivering its verdict on petitions seeking review of the 2018 verdict, the Supreme Court on November 14, 2019 enlarged the scope of the case and referred to a seven-judge Bench seven issues of discriminatory practices in various religions. All these issues are now being examined by the nine-judge Constitution Bench.
