The Delhi High Court has recently expressed its concerns over the potential misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the judicial system from unnecessary burdens. The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, highlighted the need for vigilance to ensure that the liberal framework surrounding PILs isn’t exploited.
The court stated,
“The doctrine of PIL has been developed by Courts through various judgments to address issues of public interest and to aid those persons who have been caused public injury or such persons whose fundamental rights have been infringed and whose grievances have gone unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard. However, it is often seen that frivolous PILs are filed before the Courts which cause significant delays in disposing of cases of genuine litigants with legitimate grievances.”
In the case under review, the court was examining the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in relation to electric vehicles. The Bench observed that the petitioner had primarily based the PIL on two news reports. Justice Nagarathna posed the question,
“Are some convicts being treated differently? Are some convicts more privileged than others?”
The court further noted,
“Such frivolous PILs instead of enabling access to justice, actually hinder it by wasting precious judicial time.”
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing the convicts, was interrupted by Justice Nagarathna when he began to explain the stance on remission, leading to a brief exchange between the two. Luthra’s primary argument was that the severity of a crime shouldn’t be the sole factor in denying remission benefits to convicts. The court, in response, emphasized the need to determine the legality of the remission granted in this specific case.
The court’s observations serve as a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining the sanctity and purpose of PILs. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, where genuine concerns are addressed promptly, while frivolous claims are weeded out to ensure the efficient functioning of the judicial system. This incident underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the integrity of PILs as a means to address genuine public concerns, ensuring they aren’t misused for personal or ulterior motives.