2004 (12) TMI 645 - SC - Indian Laws

It is disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Association to see that the process of law is not abused and polluted by its member. It is high time that the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation . As no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession. We would have imposed exemplary cost in this regard but taking note of the fact that the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs.25,000/-, we do not propose to impose any further cost - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
2. Locus Standi in PIL
3. Regulation and Prevention of Frivolous PILs
4. Role of Bar Councils and Bar Associations

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
The Supreme Court emphasized that the petition filed by the petitioner, although styled as a "Public Interest Litigation," was dismissed by the High Court for lacking genuine public interest. The High Court found that the petitioner was blackmailing respondents and was caught accepting blackmail money. The allegations of unauthorized constructions were also found to be false. The court remarked that such misuse of PIL is a "black spot on the noble profession" and that PIL should not be used as a tool for "publicity interest litigation," "private interest litigation," "politics interest litigation," or "paise income litigation."

2. Locus Standi in PIL
The judgment reiterated that only individuals acting bona fide with sufficient interest in the proceedings have the locus standi to approach the court in PIL cases. The court referred to previous cases (The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) to emphasize that PIL should not be invoked for personal gain, private profit, political motives, or any oblique considerations. The petitioner must come with "clean hands, clean heart, clean mind, and clean objective."

3. Regulation and Prevention of Frivolous PILs
The court highlighted the need to regulate and prevent the abuse of PILs. It noted that frivolous petitions waste valuable judicial time, which could be used for genuine cases. The court stressed that PIL should be used as a weapon for delivering social justice and not for personal vendetta. The court must ensure that the person approaching the court is acting bona fide and not for any ulterior motives. It also mentioned that courts should dismiss such frivolous petitions with exemplary costs to deter misuse.

4. Role of Bar Councils and Bar Associations
The judgment called upon Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that their members do not abuse the process of law by filing frivolous petitions under the guise of PIL. The court emphasized that maintaining the high traditions of the Bar is crucial and that no member should bring disgrace to the profession. The court decided not to impose further costs, considering the High Court had already imposed costs of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, directing that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association for necessary action. The judgment serves as a stern warning against the misuse of PIL and underscores the importance of genuine public interest in such litigations.