Public interest Litigation (PIL) – Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 - No Public Interest Litigation is to be entertained by the Registry unless the petitioner(s) has specifically disclosed his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit.

Public interest Litigation (PIL) – Maintainability of

Public interest Litigation (PIL) – Maintainability of - In terms of Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ordinarily the PIL is entertained on any subject of vital public importance as stipulated in Clause 6 of the Rules -Petitioner, an Electrician, purports to be a Social activist and a public-spirited person - Petition sans any such instance(s) or initiatives taken by the petitioner, the petition does not even contain any details of his works and contribution for public good either to lend credence to his locus to maintain this petition - On the contrary, the petitioner is involved in five criminal matters - On facts constrained to presume that petitioner is a set up - The petition is sponsored which has been filed for an oblique purpose and motive to settle a personal vendetta - Public interest appears to be the only casualty in the matter - Dissuaded to entertain this petition - It lacks bonafides and does not involve a subject of vital public importance so to say.

(2021-2)202 PLR 200

Time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else

A time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations, whereas only a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts at times are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.

2003 SCeJ 002, (2004)3 SCC 349 Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.

In the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them

The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Apart from the sinister manner, if any, of getting such copies, the real brain or force behind such cases would get exposed to find out whether it was a bona fide venture. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs, as it prima facie gives impression about oblique motives involved, and in most cases shows proxy litigation. Where the petitioner has not even a remote link with the issues involved, it becomes imperative for the court to lift the veil and uncover the real purpose of the petition and the real person behind it. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.

1998 SCeJ 002 Duryodhan Sahu (Dr) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273

Expression “specifically disclosed his credentials”

The expression “specifically disclosed his credentials” must, naturally, imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court has passed orders, etc. It cannot imply merely writing a sentence that a person is residing in the State, is public-spirited and is, thus, filing a PIL.

2013(4) PLR 367