The Bombay High Court remarked Today (27th March) that the flow of public interest litigation (PIL) should be preserved as sacred and not exploited. “These types of PILs are needlessly consuming our court’s time. Let us endeavor to maintain the sanctity of the PIL process as much as we can,” stated the Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Maharashtra: The Bombay High Court Today underscored the sanctity of public interest litigation (PIL), highlighting the importance of maintaining the integrity and purpose of such legal actions. This observation was made during the dismissal of a PIL petition filed by Sanjay Kokate against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and others. Kokate had requested a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into alleged corrupt activities within the BMC.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, criticized the frivolous nature of certain PILs, which they said, squander the judicial time of the court. They emphasized,
“It is very easy to level allegations of bribes. But where is the proof? You should refrain before making such allegations. There is nothing on corruption. These kinds of PILs are unnecessarily eating our court’s time. Please keep the stream of PIL as sacred as possible. It should not be made an instrument.”
Sanjay Kokate, who heads a charitable trust, argued that he had made multiple complaints against BMC officers. He added that based on a complaint from a local businessman, a criminal complaint was initiated, although the first information report (FIR) was lodged against only one BMC official. Kokate expressed dissatisfaction with the investigative process, suggesting that corruption within BMC continued unchecked.
The Court responded to these allegations by stating that the complainant himself should address grievances about the investigation’s adequacy. It noted that Kokate’s petition largely consisted of unfounded claims without substantial evidence to support them.
Furthermore, the Court clarified its position on transferring cases to the CBI, stating that such actions are reserved for extraordinary situations. The judges pointed out,
“In very exceptional circumstances or cases, the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can transfer investigation to CBI. However, before passing such an order, this Court needs to be satisfied of circumstances which exist warranting transfer of investigation of CBI. Such transfer of investigation of offences are normally permissible in case the reported offence has interstate or all India repercussions. In the entire petition, nothing has been brought to our notice to persuade us to transfer investigation to CBI.”
Given the lack of substantial grounds for transferring the case to the CBI, the Court decided to reject Kokate’s PIL. The bench’s firm stance sends a clear message about the misuse of public interest litigation and the need for concrete evidence when alleging corruption or other misconduct.
CASE TITLE:
Sanjay Kokate v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on PIL’s and Bombay HC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
