oppn parties Supreme Court Takes A Hard Look at PIL's & Prashant Bhushan

News Snippets

  • Mobile operators Vodafone-Idea and Airtel decide to raise tariffs from next month
  • Sharad Pawar meets Sonia Gandhi and says more time needed for government formation in Maharashtra
  • Justice S A Bobde sworn in as the 47th Chief Justice of India
  • Supreme Court holds hotels liable for theft of vehicle from their parking area if parked by valet, says "owner's risk" clause is not a shield from such liability
  • Finance Minister says she is receiving feedback from many sectors that recovery is happening as there is lower stress
  • Sabarimala temple opens, but police bar the entry of women below 50 years
  • Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman says Air India and BPCL to be sold off by March
  • Media person Rajat Sharma resigns as DDCA president
  • Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress postpone meeting the governor of Maharashtra
  • Shiv Sena not to attend the NDA meeting on 17th November, says break up "a formality"
  • Shiv Sena says that the confidence the BJP is showing about forming the government in Maharashtra is based purely on its expectation of getting numbers through horse trading
  • Anil Ambani resigns as director of the bankrupt Reliance Communications
  • India beat Bangladesh by an innings and 150 rums inside three days in the first Test. Indian pacers excel after Mayank Agarwal's double century
  • Sena-NCP-Congress work out a common minimum programme, will form the government soon and it will last 5 years, says Sharad Pawar
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholds the decision to withdraw the charitable status of Young India, making it liable to pay Rs 145 in income tax. Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Vadra are the majority shareholders in the company
Two Muslim litigants in Ayodhya refuse to accept the Supreme Court order, say review petition might be filed
oppn parties
Supreme Court Takes A Hard Look at PIL's & Prashant Bhushan

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
Image courtesy: Jagran

Prashant Bhusan is an activist lawyer. He runs the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). His outfit has become the most sought after organization for people wanting to file PIL’s. While this has kept him in the limelight and made him famous, it has also brought upon him a huge responsibility. It is doubtful whether the NGO or Prashant Bhusan himself makes any effort to fulfill the responsibility, or whether it is capable of doing so. In the absence of such efforts, the very fact that it keeps on filing one PIL after another has made the Supreme Court question it’s bona fide.

Specifically, the Supreme Court has asked the CPIL whether it has a committee which scrutinizes the various complaints it receives and allows only those it considers genuine to be converted into PIL’s. The Court went on to observe that given the fact that CPIL files many PIL’s where it questions government contracts, it is quite possible that rival corporations can initiate those cases, although the grounds appear of public interest. It went on to say that the CPIL should not become a proxy litigant or a front for settling corporate rivalry or personal vendetta.

The Supreme Court has raised valid concerns. While it is true that lawyers specialize in different streams of law so there is nothing wrong if Bhushan specializes in PIL’s. But it is also true that PIL’s are a very cheap source of initiating legal proceedings and must be available only to the common man on issues of national interest. Further, the litigants can hide behind an organization to initiate such proceedings. In comparison, civil or criminal cases are very costly and the litigant has to disclose his name as plaintiff. So there is always the chance that corporations or even individuals can initiate PIL’s through an NGO to escape personal identification and avoid court and legal expenses.

On PIL’s, the Court has also decreed that once PIL’s are filed and heard, they cannot be withdrawn. It was reacting to the appeal of the lawyer who had filed the PIL for getting women to enter Sabarimala shrine. Naushad Ahmad Khan, the lawyer concerned submitted before the court that he had received over 300 death threats. The Court opined that it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist the it in case the lawyer is forced to withdraw, but the PIL itself cannot be withdrawn. This should make people stop the practice of threatening lawyers who file PIL’s.

Public crusades are beneficial for society only if they are genuine. With his huge experience as a PIL lawyer, Bhushan should have had a system in place which could separate the grain from the chaff. The first red flag should be a litigant who has huge evidence with him in form of papers which are difficult for a common man to lay hands on. This should immediately alert lawyers filing PIL’s that there are extraneous forces who are supplying these papers. One is sure there are many other red flags which experienced lawyers can spot easily. Bhushan and others who specialize in filing PIL’s should note that with Supreme Court getting stricter, they will have to work more on their cases before bringing them up before the bench.