The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8th) refused to entertain a slew of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions, most of which it deemed frivolous. The reopening day saw many PIL petitions listed before various Benches, particularly the Court of Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a series of public interest litigation (PIL) petitions, most of which were deemed frivolous. This marked the reopening of the Court after a seven-week summer vacation, with numerous PIL petitions listed before various Benches, particularly that of the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
PIL to Halt Centre’s Access to the Aadhaar Database Until Safety Guidelines Are in Place
This petition was presented before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. At the outset, CJI Chandrachud remarked,
“Looks like this is at the behest of someone.”
The Bench subsequently directed the petitioner to first approach the High Court, dismissing the PIL while granting the liberty to approach the concerned High Court.
PIL to Bar National Political Parties from Contesting Local Body Polls
A PIL seeking to bar national political parties from participating in local body elections was met with stern disapproval by the CJI-led Bench.
“What kind of PIL is this? You can withdraw and exercise other remedies available with you. How can you come under Article 32? We cannot have a general PIL like this,”
-the CJI stated.
The plea was immediately withdrawn.
PIL in a Service Matter
This PIL, also heard by the bench led by CJI Chandrachud, was dismissed on the grounds that public interest litigation would not be entertained in service matters.
“We have already held that a public interest litigation will not lie in service matters at all. The graver danger is that in such cases you have been set up by someone to file this,”
-the CJI observed.
The matter was subsequently withdrawn, with the petitioner granted the liberty to approach the concerned High Court.
PIL for Directions to Take Action Against Cyber Terrorism
Addressing a PIL aimed at combating cyber terrorism, the CJI approached the issue in a lighter vein.
“When we hear PILs by you on Mondays and Fridays, we get some comic relief. You have laws today and the government is there to look into all this. Not for the judicial domain,”
-the CJI remarked before dismissing the case.
PIL in Supreme Court to Have Women Doctors, Prosecutors for Sexual Assault Survivors
The Bench expressed confusion over the nature of the prayers in this PIL.
“It is also about availability of doctors. Also, how can we direct that only women public prosecutors be appointed in cases of gender violence? We cannot say something like this,”
-CJI Chandrachud remarked.
The petitioner was eventually allowed to withdraw the plea.
PIL Against Poor State of Roads
A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard this matter. Justice Amanullah questioned whether there was any enforceable law regarding the issue.
“What are you actually wanting to put forth? Where is the law for this? What is the point? Kindly show. We do not want to waste time to do your homework. You have raised a wide question without showing any provision of law,”
-he stated.
The counsel lamented that contractors were repeatedly digging up public roads, causing suffering for residents. Justice Dhulia then instructed,
“You withdraw with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court after doing more research.”
Consequently, the plea was withdrawn.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s reopening day was marked by the dismissal or withdrawal of several PILs, reflecting the Court’s firm stance on maintaining judicial efficiency and directing petitioners to appropriate legal channels.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
