SC is losing touch with PILs
December 18, 2005
Ronald L. Rebello, Mumbai
The Supreme Court’s recent direction to a PIL petitioner (in a petition against Mulayam Singh amassing wealth disproportionate to his income) to file an affidavit that he is not affiliated with any political party is eccentric. This excessive firman will curtail article 51A (the fundamental duties of a citizen) and will consequently be ultra vires to the Constitution of India. What the judges should concern themselves with, is the merit of the case and not ask the petitioner to “Swear that your PIL is not political.”
The increase in the price of rail tickets, the prohibition on carrying out processions, starvation deaths, corruption and even the increase in prices of onions and potatoes is governance politics. Are the judges trying to say that a member of a political party cannot take a PIL in the court in these above situations too? Politics, by definition, is an art of making things possible. What the judiciary has to examine is whether the motive behind a PIL is power politics vis-à-vis judicial principles (Justice, Equity and Good conscience).
Today, the Judges are adopting a biased and narrow view of a PIL. Earlier in 1997, it was the corrupt babus and MPs who had tried introducing a Bill in Parliament that required a complainant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh before filing a PIL. Over the past few years, from my observation of the attitude of SC judges (many term PIL as Political Interest Litigation, Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation and Paise Interest Litigation), it seems that the Supreme Court is losing its touch with this bold Constitutional remedy which Justice V. R Krishna Iyer and P. N Bhagwati gave this country. As Law Minister, Mr. H. R Bharadwaj aptly remarked recently: “The Supreme Court has killed its image of civil liberty”.
Liberal and bold judges are the need of the hour.
Ronald L. Rebello, Mumbai
The Supreme Court’s recent direction to a PIL petitioner (in a petition against Mulayam Singh amassing wealth disproportionate to his income) to file an affidavit that he is not affiliated with any political party is eccentric. This excessive firman will curtail article 51A (the fundamental duties of a citizen) and will consequently be ultra vires to the Constitution of India. What the judges should concern themselves with, is the merit of the case and not ask the petitioner to “Swear that your PIL is not political.”
The increase in the price of rail tickets, the prohibition on carrying out processions, starvation deaths, corruption and even the increase in prices of onions and potatoes is governance politics. Are the judges trying to say that a member of a political party cannot take a PIL in the court in these above situations too? Politics, by definition, is an art of making things possible. What the judiciary has to examine is whether the motive behind a PIL is power politics vis-à-vis judicial principles (Justice, Equity and Good conscience).
Today, the Judges are adopting a biased and narrow view of a PIL. Earlier in 1997, it was the corrupt babus and MPs who had tried introducing a Bill in Parliament that required a complainant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh before filing a PIL. Over the past few years, from my observation of the attitude of SC judges (many term PIL as Political Interest Litigation, Private Interest Litigation, Publicity Interest Litigation and Paise Interest Litigation), it seems that the Supreme Court is losing its touch with this bold Constitutional remedy which Justice V. R Krishna Iyer and P. N Bhagwati gave this country. As Law Minister, Mr. H. R Bharadwaj aptly remarked recently: “The Supreme Court has killed its image of civil liberty”.
Liberal and bold judges are the need of the hour.
posted by RONALD REBELLO @ 9:15 PM
1 comments
