Centre Suggests Removal Of PILs As Concept, Supreme Court Says It Exercises Caution

The issue arose while discussing Sabarimala review petitions, where Justice BV Nagarathana questioned why petitions filed by non-devotees were admitted.

Supreme Court Of India (PTI)

The central government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to consider removing public interest litigation (PIL) as a legal concept, saying it has outlived its original purpose. The submission came during a hearing on the Sabarimala review petitions before the nine-judge Constitution Bench.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the court that PILs were created as an “exceptional constitutional device” to help those who could not access courts due to poverty, illiteracy, disability, or social exclusion.

Mehta argued that technological advancements, legal aid institutions, and wider access to courts have largely addressed these issues, NDTV reported.

“In this day and age, why should such PILs be entertained?” Mehta asked. He added that many petitions filed today are motivated by hidden interests and do not serve the genuinely aggrieved.

The Centre pointed out the rapid growth of PIL filings over the decades. From just 25,000 petitions annually in 1985, the number rose to over 70,000 by 2019, of which only a small percentage were considered genuine, it said.

ALSO READ: ‘No Public Injury Caused’: Calcutta HC Rejects PIL Against ECI Transfers Ahead Of Bengal Polls

The government argued that PILs, intended as a remedy for “exceptional barriers”, have instead become a tool for “agenda-driven litigation”, displacing the real parties affected.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant responded that the courts are already exercising caution when entertaining PILs. “Nowadays… and ‘nowadays’ does not mean only the last few years… these Courts themselves have been very, very careful in entertaining PILs,” he said.

The CJI noted that guidelines and parameters are applied to ensure that frivolous or agenda-driven petitions are filtered out.

The issue arose while discussing Sabarimala review petitions, where Justice BV Nagarathana questioned why petitions filed by non-devotees were admitted. She noted that petitions by “strangers” to a religious practice may not always merit judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court, however, acknowledged that in cases involving fundamental rights and constitutional questions, judicial intervention may be necessary even if petitioners are not directly affected.

Read More