The Supreme Court refused to take up 25 PILs filed by advocate Sachin Gupta and urged him to prioritise his legal practice. CJI Surya Kant said, “Concentrate on profession; we will examine all matters when time is right.”
The Supreme Court refused to entertain 25 public interest litigation (PIL) petitions filed by a single petitioner, advocate Sachin Gupta.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi told the petitioner to focus on his legal practice instead of filing PILs.
CJI Kant remarked,
“Concentrate on the profession. When the time is correct we will entertain the cases as well. But first try to sensitise and deal with issues,”
The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the petitions, which the Bench allowed.
While permitting the petitioner to withdraw the petitions, the Court said,
“PIL is purportedly in public interest. Not entertained,”
The petitions included requests for, among other things:
- A policy to develop a common link language for India using words from all languages and dialects spoken in the country;
- A policy for a television programme focused on legal awareness;
- A policy on chemicals used in soaps restricting use to chemicals that eliminate harmful bacteria while not affecting bacteria essential for healthy skin;
- A pan-India food/FSSAI registration drive;
- Measures for the upliftment of disadvantaged groups, including beggars, children, transgender persons, and women;
- Guidelines on how government officials, including members of the judiciary, should use social media;
- A policy on gun use;
- Guidelines regarding consecutive and concurrent sentences in criminal cases;
- A policy to declare festival holidays as “Public Welfare date” for the benefit of society;
- A committee to revise standards for polishing pulses so that polished pulses are less harmful for human consumption;
- A policy to invent and promote smartphones tailored to specific age groups children, adolescents, and adults;
- An animal welfare policy covering issues such as lab-grown meat, promoting alternatives to leather, restricting use of bone china crockery, and organizing food collection for animals from shops and stalls;
- Legal education reforms, including making public interest litigation a focus in LLB programmes and expanding law school internships;
- Recriminalising adultery along with a provision for “sex agreement”;
- A policy on the symbol of national identity, including suggestions to modify the national anthem, introduce a new calendar called “Bharat Samvat,” propose a new symbol of democracy, and include the “symbol of justice” in a national symbol;
- A law regulating advertisements about government schemes and encouraging news channels to disseminate awareness about government schemes and policies;
- A policy on the mandatory use of screen protectors for TVs, computers, and laptops;
- Regulations for shop signboards especially for food outlets to display the names of owners and staff and the type of food/eatery habits;
- A policy on population control;
- A committee to examine the feasibility of a “two-alliance system” in India.
The Court had dismissed four other PILs filed by the same advocate last month, sharply criticising the casual way some of them were drafted.
Those petitions covered subjects including regulation of alcohol and land registration, as well as whether onions and garlic carry negative (“tamasic”) energy.
During a hearing on March 26, CJI Kant had commented,
“Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya? (Do you draft these petitions at midnight?)”
At that time, the Bench had also criticised those it said appear to be “running PIL shops,” referring to the large number of frivolous PILs the Court has had to deal with.
The Supreme Court dismissed five frivolous Public Interest Litigations lodged by a single lawyer, including one that requested a scientific inquiry into whether onions and garlic possess “tamasic” energy, and asked if he prepared them late at night.
Chief Justice Surya Kant criticized Advocate Sachin Gupta, calling the PILs “vague, frivolous and baseless.”