The lawsuit was initiated by K.M. Cherian, who established Frontier Lifeline, a firm now in the process of liquidation. Cherian had earlier faced defeats in legal challenges regarding the company’s liquidation at both the National Company Law Tribunal and its appellate body, NCLAT. Furthermore, his legal actions against the State Bank of India had been previously rejected by the Supreme Court. Advocate Prashant Bhushan is arguing public interest litigations.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has reprimanded noted Advocate Prashant Bhushan for presenting a personal interest case under the guise of a public interest litigation (PIL). This incident highlights the fine line between personal and public interest in legal proceedings and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the sanctity of PILs.
Also read- Prashant Bhushan Queries SC Registry On Removal Of Judge Appointment Petitions (lawchakra.in)
The case in question was filed by K.M. Cherian, the founder of Frontier Lifeline, a company currently undergoing liquidation. Cherian had previously lost legal battles against the liquidation process in the National Company Law Tribunal and the appellate tribunal NCLAT. Additionally, his petitions against the State Bank of India were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, a veteran in arguing public interest litigations, took a unique stance in this case. He argued for a differentiated loan repayment regime for medical research organizations, citing a 2018 suggestion by Niti Ayog. Advocate Prashant Bhushan emphasized that medical research has a longer gestation period compared to other businesses, advocating for a more lenient loan repayment timeline for such organizations.
Also read- Supreme Court Stays Meghalaya HC Order On Custodial Death (lawchakra.in)
However, the Supreme Court bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, was quick to identify the personal interest embedded in the litigation. The Chief Justice pointed out,
“It is purely a personal interest litigation as the petitioner is directly involved in the case. We cannot entertain a personal interest petition masquerading as public interest litigation.”
In response to the court’s observation, Advocate Bhushan raised a pertinent question about the implications of this judgment on future PILs. He asked whether a person with personal knowledge of irregularities or deficiencies would be barred from filing a PIL to address these anomalies. The bench, however, chose not to respond to this query and dismissed Cherian’s PIL, stating,
“We have already taken a view on the petition.”
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of distinguishing between personal and public interests in legal proceedings, especially in the context of PILs. The Supreme Court’s stance reinforces the need for maintaining the integrity and purpose of public interest litigations, ensuring they are not misused for personal gains.