SC slams frivolous petition by RTI activist, says it’s judicial adventurism, not public interest. Court warns against abuse of PILs in electoral matters.
New Delhi: Today, on July 24, the Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, strongly criticized the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and dismissed a petition that alleged fake voter registrations. The court said that its jurisdiction for handling PILs was being wrongly used and such cases wasted judicial time.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the matter and termed the petition as completely without merit. The court did not find the case to be genuine and refused to entertain it.
Calling out the misuse of PILs, Chief Justice Gavai said,
“Our PIL jurisdiction is being misused and abused. We don’t entertain such frivolous petitions.”
This strong observation was made while hearing the petition, which was presented by a lawyer on behalf of an RTI activist. The plea alleged that there were false and duplicate names in the voters’ list.
Even though the petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was a Right to Information (RTI) activist and that the issue raised was serious as it related to bogus voter registration, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced.
The bench clearly stated that the court could not interfere in this matter and advised a legislative route instead.
The court added,
“These are bogus public interest litigation. It is not a public interest litigation. It is judicial adventurism.”
The judges expressed their concern that such petitions not only misuse the PIL jurisdiction but also divert the court’s attention from more urgent and genuine issues.
Further, the bench sarcastically suggested that the petitioner should take the issue to the lawmakers if they were serious about electoral reforms.
ALSO READ: Election Commission of India Invites MP Mahua Moitra After Supreme Court Order
The court remarked,
“The petitioner might get hold of some parliamentarian and ask for an amendment in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
The remarks from the bench clearly indicate that the judiciary is not inclined to entertain PILs that do not have a solid legal foundation and appear to be politically motivated or filed merely for publicity.
This judgment also acts as a reminder that PILs must be filed with a sense of responsibility and genuine concern for the public, not for personal agendas or experiments in the name of activism.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Voter Registration
