STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 1 SCR 678 issued several directions for curbing filing of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for extraneous considerations.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Appointment of L. P. Nathani as Advocate General was challenged in a Public Interest Litigation before High Court. The High Court directed the State Government to take a decision on the same within fifteen days.
The State of Uttaranchal preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Despite service, Respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that the Advocate General for the State can be appointed after attaining age of 62 years. Similarly, the Attorney General of India can be appointed after attaining age of 65 years.
The Supreme Court held that it was a clear case of abuse of Public Interest Litigation.
ORIGIN OF PIL
The Supreme Court observed that PIL is product of realization of the constitutional obligation of the Court. A very large section of society because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy had been denied justice for time immemorial and in fact they have no access to justice. Pre-dominantly to provide access to justice to the poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society, this court has initiated, encouraged and propelled the public interest litigation. The rule of locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of “aggrieved person” was broadened to provide access to a very large section of the society which was otherwise not getting any benefit from the judicial system.
The Supreme Court noted that Public Interest Litigation has gone through three phases. The first phase dealt with cases of the Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this Court or the High Courts. The second phase dealt with cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment forests, marine life, wildlife, mountain, rivers, historical monuments. The third phase dealt with the directions issued by Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.
PIL IN OTHER COUNTRIES
The Supreme Court noted that Australian Court has diluted the principle of aggrieved person for protection of environment. It was important that the Petitioner did not have any other motive than the stated one of protecting the environment.
In USA also, the Supreme Court has diluted the stance and allowed organizations dedicated to protection of environment to fight cases even though such societies are not directly armed by the action in environment cases.
In England the use of PIL in England has been comparably limited. The limited development in PIL has occurred through broadening the rules of standing.
The South African Constitution has adopted with a commitment to “transform the society into one in which there will be human dignity, freedom and equality”. Thus, improving access to justice falls squarely within the mandate of this constitution. In furtherance of this objective, the South African legal framework takes a favorable stance towards PIL by prescribing broad rules of standing and relaxing pleading requirements.
ABUSE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
The Supreme Court noted that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the Courts is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. The Supreme Court issued several directions to prevent the abuse of process of law and curbing PIL filed for extraneous considerations. The Supreme Court requested High Courts for framing uniform rules for handling of PIL. Credentials of the Petitioner should be checked before entertaining PIL. The Court should be satisfied that it involves substantial public interest.
___________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.