This article is written by Arya Senapati. It attempts to analyse the case of Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) by understanding the facts, issues, arguments, and judgement of this landmark case relating to Public Interest Litigation. It also discusses the important provisions and legal principles dealt with in this particular case, along with an analysis of similar case laws for better understanding. 

Table of Contents

Introduction 

Being a democracy, India recognises multiple fundamental rights for citizens and non-citizens which help them realise their individual liberty and dignity of life. These fundamental rights are enlisted in Part III of the Constitution of India and seem to safeguard freedom of speech and expression, right to religion, right against discrimination, right to life and liberty and other peripheral fundamental rights. Even though the safeguards exist, there stands no relevance without an effective enforcement mechanism. The constituent assembly therefore introduced Article 32 in the Indian Constitution to ensure that citizens have access to Constitutional protection and an effective redressal mechanism in case of violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, Article 32 transcribes the fundamental right of a citizen to seek Constitutional remedies. It means, whenever the right of a citizen is hampered, they have the right to seek a remedy for the violation by virtue of the right conferred to them by the Constitution itself. As per Article 32, a citizen of India, can approach the Supreme Court of India through a writ petition to remedy the violation of a fundamental right. 

The individual remedy is through Article 32, but let’s imagine a situation where the fundamental rights of a certain class or section of society or the general public is hampered by the action of state mechanisms or a state body. What shall be the remedy in such a case? To address this question, the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) came into existence. Even though PILs are not defined anywhere in the Constitution, they are an effective tool in the hands of concerned citizens to seek redressal for violation of rights of a certain class of people or the general public itself. In such a case, the Supreme Court of India takes into account the circumstances of the matter and issues directions to state authorities to act or abstain from doing an act so as to prevent the violation of rights of the general public. What happens when this instrument which helps protect the fundamental rights of the public becomes a tool for fulfilling personal interest? Let’s analyse the case to find out what the courts have stated regarding the murky situation of PILs being used for fulfilling personal interest and ulterior motives. 

Download Now

Details of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors (1991)

Name of the Case- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Date of Judgement- 9th January, 1991

Type of case- Writ Petition (Civil) by the way of Public Interest Litigation

Court- Supreme Court of India

Bench- Justice K.N. Singh and Justice N.D. Ojha

Author of the Judgement- Justice K.N. Singh

Name of the Parties

Petitioner- Subhash Kumar

Respondents- State of Bihar, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Tata Iron and Steel Company and West Bokaro Collieries

Citations- 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1) 5

Laws discussed in the case- 

Facts of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors (1991)

At the very outset of the matter, this case deals with a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner approached the court by way of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek a Constitutional remedy by virtue of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a concerned resident of Bokaro, Jharkhand filed a writ petition stating that the respondents which is the West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company, (TISCO) were guilty of polluting water bodies in the surrounding regions of the factories by emitting harmful chemicals, wastes, and other hazardous material into the water bodies during their operations. This petition was concerned over the adverse effects it can have over the local residents who are dependent on those water bodies for their daily activities and chores. After being subjected to such harmful chemicals and pollutants, Mr. Subhash Kumar approached the court to seek a remedy against this pollution.  

By discharging their surplus waste into the water bodies, the factories were making such bodies unfit for purposes of drinking and irrigation, which was affecting the lives and livelihood of many people. He challenged this action of the entities and stated that the right to clean water and a clean pollution free environment is a fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21 upheld in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996) and the violation of which should have dire consequences and must be effectively remedied. He sought an injunction against the respondent’s actions to protect the purity of water and prevent further deterioration due to business and commercial activities carried out by these entities. 

The petition also brought to light how the State of Bihar and the State Pollution Control Board have not been successful at protecting the rights of the people and preventing such an action which is detrimental to public health by not taking appropriate action against such entities. The partition also highlighted that these state bodies have granted leases to many people for collection of slurries through payment of royalty. 

Based on these concerns, the petitioner through his petition prays to the Supreme Court of India to take appropriate measures through legal remedies to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and prevent any further degradation of communal natural resources like water bodies. He also sought interim relief from the court to collect slurries from the factories who are polluting the water bodies. 

Issues raised

  • Is the petition made by the petitioner to prevent pollution of water bodies through discharge of effluents by companies maintainable under Article 32?
  • Has the petition been filed with public interest in mind or for fulfilling the personal interest of the petitioner?
  • Has the State Board of Pollution Control taken enough effective measures to prevent pollution by discharge of effluents from companies?

Arguments of the parties in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors (1991)

Petitioners contentions

Through this PIL, the petitioner contends that by virtue of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, he has a fundamental right to seek constitutional remedy for any public injustice and therefore approaches the court against the entities mentioned as the respondent in this case. The petitioner seeks to raise an issue to order the director of West Bokaro Collieries and TISCO to put a halt on the discharge of slurry/ sewage into the water bodies and washeries in the Hazaribagh District of the State of Bihar. 

The petitioner states that the Parliament has enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 with the object of preventing water pollution and damage to public health as a consequence of such pollution. It establishes the State Water Pollution Boards which is responsible for carrying out various functions which are mentioned under Section 17 of the Act. The primary responsibility of the board also extends to inspecting “sewage or trade effluents and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade effluents and to review plans, specifications or other data set up for the treatment of water and to lay down standards to be complied with by the persons while causing discharge of sewage or sullage.”

Furthermore, Section 24 of the Act also lays down provisions which states that no individual or entity shall intentionally cause or allow any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to be mixed into any water stream or well which could have the effect of aggravation of pollution and detriment to the public. By virtue of this Section, the petitioner argues that the Tata Iron and Steel Co. which is respondent no. 5 in the matter is responsible for carrying out mining operations in the region of Jamshedpur and the West Bokaro Collieries have two washeries in the Bokaro region. After the extraction of coal, they are brought to the washeries for being broken into graded pieces and for further processing to reduce the coal into ash contents through a method called as froth floatation. 

After being washed, the water is carried through pipes into storage ponds to retain the slurry and the coal particles are made to settle on the bottom of the pond with sedimentation and after the slurry is collected the pond is dewatered. The petitioner states that the surplus waste which is the sludge/ slurry is usually discharged as an effluent from the washeries into the Bokaro river and eventually gets deposited into the riverbed and also at times settles on land and one such land also belongs to the petitioner. The sludge or slurry getting deposited on agricultural or farm land leads to absorption of the carbonaceous particles into the soil, which affects the fertility of the land and eventually impacts the harvest adversely. 

The emission of the sludge/ slurry into the Bokaro river also makes the water in the river unfit for drinking and irrigation and the petitioner argues that even after multiple representations, the State of Bihar and State Pollution Control Board haven’t taken any solid step to prevent such degradation of water and public health. He also argues that the Pollution Control Board has authorised the pollution of water by leaving it unchecked. He, therefore, claims relief from the Apex Court of India. 

Respondent’s contentions

The respondents denied the allegations that the State of Bihar, State Pollution Board, Director of Collieries and TISCO have not taken any steps to prevent the entry of the slurry/ sewage into the Bokaro River. The Bihar State Pollution Board states that the company TISCO operates open case and underground mining and by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 had made an application for permission of the board to discharge the effluents through their specific outlets and the board has properly conducted an analysis of the effluents in the discharge, and they were constantly supervising the monitoring the situation to ensure that the discharge does not affect the quality of the water of the Bokaro River in any adverse manner. 

As an extension, the State Pollution Control Board of the State of Bihar had also issued an order to impose conditions on the Director of Collieries to immediately take effective steps to enhance the quality of the discharge entering into the Bokaro River. The State Pollution Control Board had also ordered the company to create tow settling tanks to ensure the settlement of solids and conduct rewashing in the same tanks. 

The Board argues that it had also directed the companies to submit samples of the effluent periodically for testing the suspending solids and analysing their content to adjudge the effect that they could potentially have on the quality of the water. The Board had ordered the companies to conduct the tests every month and convey the results to the board effectively. 

The Board also contended that the company had on its own initiative established four ponds to increase their effluent storage capacity so as to prevent discharge. Upon receiving notice after the writ petition was filed, the board had carried out inspection and found out that all the four ponds had been successfully constructed and the process of strengthening the embankment of the ponds was on work. It had also found that there is no discharge of effluents into the river Bokaro from the washeries and there were only insignificant seepages through the embankments. The board stated that it had also issued directions to the companies for performing de-sludging of the tanks used for settling in periodic intervals as per the standards set by the Board and following which, there hasn’t been any discharge from any tanks into the Bokaro river and therefore there is no concern over pollution of river water and reduction of soil fertility. 

Issue wise judgement

Is the petition made by the petitioner to prevent pollution of water bodies through discharge of effluents by companies maintainable under Article 32?

Based on the facts of the case and after hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the respondents, the court comes to the conclusion that there exists no prima facie case against the respondents as there is no evidence of the water of the Bokaro river being polluted by slurry discharge. The Court is also of the opinion that the State Pollution Control Board has taken effective measures to prevent and control the pollution of water from River Bokaro due to discharge of effluents. The Court due to the lack of prima facie case also feels that it is unnecessary for it to divulge into the greater details of the court. The court also observes that the petition has not been filed in the interest of the public but rather the own interest of the petitioner. 

Has the petition been filed keeping public interest in mind or for fulfilling the personal interest of the petitioner?

By observing the points provided in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No. 4 and 5 it is clear that the petitioner has been buying slurry from Respondents 4 and 5 for several years and he got greedy to purchase more slurry but eventually the respondents refused to sell more slurry to him. As the petitioner is a reputed businessman with influence, he had received a licence for the purposes of coal trading and therefore attempted to exert pressure through multiple ways on the respondent companies to make them sell more quantities of slurry to him and upon refusal, he also harassed the company. He continued further to remove the slurry of the company in a completely unauthorised manner and a criminal case was filed on him under Section 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 that was read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The case remains pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and Court of Judicial Magistrate, Second Class in Hazaribagh. The petitioner had initiated multiple proceedings against the respondents in High Court of Patna based on Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit collection of the Slurry from the Raiyati land but these cases were dismissed due to the existence of a dispute on the title of the land. 

Due to the refusal of the company to sell more slurry to him, he obtained a grudge against the company and therefore initiated multiple proceedings against the company including this one. The interim relief sought by the petitioner to collect more slurry from the companies makes it evident that he has no public interest in mind but rather his own personal interest. 

Has the State Board of Pollution Control taken enough effective measures to prevent pollution by discharge of effluents from companies?

Based on the evidence submitted by the State Pollution Control Board, the court is satisfied that the state authority has taken appropriate measures to prevent pollution of water bodies due to effluent discharge. The board has acted as per the authority and power bestowed upon it by the Water Act. 

Rationale behind the judgement

The court’s rationale behind passing the judgement was that the object of the Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is to safeguard the rights of citizens by the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, and it also lays down an extraordinary procedure to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen. The court also recognises that Right to Life is a fundamental right under the Article 21 of the Constitution and by extension it has multiple peripheral and concomitant rights manifesting from it. Right to a clean environment and pollution free water is also a right that emanates from Article 21 which is, Right to Life and Liberty. If at all an action of a state body poses a threat to the purity of water and environment, every citizen is provided with the recourse to seek redressal from the apex court by virtue of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, a petition under Article 32 to prevent pollution of water is maintainable, but such a recourse to initiate a proceeding must be taken by someone who is genuinely affected by the acts or is interested in the well-being of the public. This gives rise to Public Interest Litigation which has been an instrumental tool in the hands of many responsible citizens to prevent major incidents of violations of fundamental rights but to use such a right to quench personal grudge and personal interest is an abuse of the mechanism and obstruction to justice for genuine petitioners. It is the duty of the court to prevent such vexatious and unscrupulous litigations and therefore, the court dismisses the petition and orders the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 as costs to be paid to the respondents.

Analysis of the judgement in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors (1991)

While Public Interest Litigation developed as an instrument to protect the rights of the public in general or of a certain section of society, the concern of its misuse was always lingering in judicial and legal forums. The judgement laid out by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shubash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) set precedent to prevent vexatious and malicious Public Interest Litigations to fulfil personal motives and interests. By imposing costs on the petitioner, the court attempts to deter future litigations from persons interested in their own gains under the garb of serving the interest of the general populace. 

It is to be understood that in the instant case, the petitioner attempted to prevent the violation of Article 21. Article 21 is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India attempting to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty. Through multiple cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the courts have interpreted Article 21 to include many other rights which are essential for sustaining a life of dignity. These rights include right to travel abroad, right to sexual orientation, right to privacy, right to sleep, right to clean environment and right to clean water as has been contested in this particular case. The petitioner’s contention that the State Bodies i.e. State of Bihar and State Pollution Control Board, Bihar were responsible for violation of the fundamental right to clean water as an extension of Article 21 was found to be invalid as the state agencies had taken enough actions and measures to prevent the degradation of the quality of water. 

Furthermore, the very fact that the chain of circumstances and previous litigations proved that the PIL was a vexatious litigation to fulfil a personal grudge that the petitioner has on the respondents due to failed business relations is enough for the court to assume that the petitioner had personal interest in the matter. The lack of prima facie case against the respondents also leaves no ground for the courts to delve further into the matter to find and appreciate more evidence. Therefore, by imposing costs on the petitioners, the Court’s attempt to create deterrence from such litigations is highly appreciable and a remarkable precedent to save court’s time and protect the PILL mechanism from being misused by puny individuals. 

Provisions involved in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors (1991)

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

The Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides for certain remedies to citizens for deprivation of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. It states that every citizen shall have the right to move to the Supreme Court of India to enforce the rights guaranteed to them by virtue of constitutional principles and furthering the motion to enforce their rights, the Supreme Court shall issue directions in form of writs which are usually in the nature of: 

  • Habeas corpus;
  • Mandamus;
  • Prohibition;
  • Quo warranto; or
  • Certiorari 

Any of these 5 writ can be issued by the Supreme Court whichever seems appropriate keeping the matters and circumstances of the case in mind. The right to seek constitutional remedy is one of the rights that doesn’t get suspended by mechanisms provided by the Constitution to suspend certain fundamental rights in case of emergencies. In the case of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs S. S. Shukla Etc. (1976), when Article 21 was suspended due to national emergency, the order of preventive detention against Shukla was given by ADM, Jabalpur. This order was challenged through a habeas corpus petition under Article 32. It was held that such an order cannot be challenged even if it violated the parent Act i.e. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950 but to ensure that such a situation does not arise again, the 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 was issued which stated that personal liberty and right to seek Constitutional remedy for deprivation of personal liberty cannot be suspended even during a period of emergency. Such actions are constitutional privileges and the deprivation of such provisions can hamper the interests of the citizens detrimentally. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

This particular provision guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to citizens of India. By judicial interpretation through multiple Public Interest Litigations and other cases, the courts have stated various other fundamental rights emanating from Article 21 which are necessary for sustaining life and living a life with dignity. Such rights include the right to clean air, the right to sleep, the right to livelihood and the right to a clean environment. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983) is the first case that highlighted the right to clean environment as a manifestation of right to life and liberty. Right to clean environment further ensures the right to clean air, water, land etc which are free from pollution and harmful substances. Right to clean water was recognised thoroughly in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2001) which stated that a right to clean, and drinkable water is a fundamental right for every citizen and the state machinery should take effective measures to prevent degradation of water quality and ensure the access of citizens to clean and drinkable water. 

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code deals with theft and states that anyone who commits theft will be punished for a term of imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. A case under this Section was filed by the respondents against petitioner as the petitioner’s started showing grudge against the respondent for not selling the effluents to him. He removed the Company’s slurry in an unauthorised manner for which a Criminal Case under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against him.

Section 411 of Indian Penal Code

Section 411 of IPC deals with the people receiving stolen property dishonestly. If a person has knowledge and awareness about the fact that the property he is receiving is a stolen property and yet receives it shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years/ fine/both.

Relevant provision of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

Section 17 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 

This particular provision seeks to establish a State Pollution Control Board and highlight the functions and role of the particular board. It states that the Board shall be responsible for various functions including formation for comprehensive plan of actions for prevention and control of pollution of streams and wells, provide advice to state governments on matters concerned with water pollution, conduct local investigations and research to find out problems relating to water pollution in local limits, collect data and provide information and raise awareness among general public to prevent pollution of water bodies, inspection of sewage and trade effluents, sewage treatment plans and collect data regarding mechanisms set up for treatment of water and purification and review any grant of consent provided by the act for such mechanisms. 

It shall also be responsible for laying down and modifying annual effluent standards for the treatment of sewage and for water quality resulting from discharge of effluents. It shall also develop effective and economical methods for treating sewage and trade effluents to prevent degradation of local climate, soil and water resources, lay standards for sewage and trade effluents being discharged into any particular stream and most importantly make orders or revoke orders for prevention, control of abatement of waste discharge into streams and wells. 

Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

This provision deals with the prohibition on use of streams and wells for disposal of pollutants and harmful substances. It states that no person shall intentionally allow the entry of poisonous, noxious or pollutant matters into any particular stream/ well or sewer or land. The standards are set by the Board to determine which substances are poisonous, noxious and harmful pollutants.

It also states that no person shall cause any matter to enter into any stream which may prove to be an impediment to the regular flow of water in the particular stream and cause substantial aggravation of pollution in the water body as a consequence of such entry. This provision grants the right to the State Government to consult with the State Pollution Control Board and exempt the application of these provisions on any person or entity based on the conditions specified in the notification and such conditions can be varied, modified or altered by the state authorities. 

Section 25 of The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act

This provision states that no person shall establish any industry, business, or operation or facilities treatment or disposal of sewage which would likely result in discharge of sewage or trade effluent into the stream/ well or sewer or on land or bring into use any new outlet for sewage discharge or construct any new sewage discharge facilities without the previous consent of the State Pollution Control  Board. Application for Board’s consent shall be made in prescribed format and the board shall conduct inquiry and take necessary steps to adjudge if the consent should be granted or not. 

Section 26 of The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act

This provision states that wherever there existed a situation wherein there used to be a person discharging sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or on land immediately before the commencement of the Act, Section 25 will apply to such person as mentioned in that section subject to modification that an application for onset is to be made under Sub-Section (2) of Section 25.

Section 27 of The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act

This provision deals with withdrawal or refusal of grant of consent by the State Pollution Control Board. It states that if the person or entity fails to adhere to the conditions imposed by the Board for the purposes of establishing industry, operation, or process or treatment and disposal system of sewage or outlet, then the board has the power to refuse the grant of consent or withdraw consent altogether. The board is also entrusted with regularly reviewing the compliance to conditions imposed under section 25 and 26 and issuing notice for variations or revocation of any conditions. The board shall also have the power to alter, modify or revoke any particular conditions imposed by it. 

Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India

The concept and principles of Public Interest Litigation emerged first in the United States of America. In India, Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice K Iyer are considered as the pioneers of the PIL movement and have expounded several judgments furthering the cause of Public Interest Litigation in India to prohibit violation of fundamental rights of a class of people. First and foremost, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary Bihar (1979), there emerged an article in the newspaper regarding the condition of under-trial prisoners in the state of Bihar. It brought into light the multiple hardships faced by the prisoners for minor offences due to which they have spent a lot of time in jail. Concerned over the situation, Advocate Hingorani, even though he had no locus standi in the matter, represented the under-trial prisoners and filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court of India. The court directed the state to present a list of the under-trial prisoners to the court. The Bench consisting of Justice PN Bhagwati delivered the judgement and ordered the state to release the prisoners whose names were present in the list. The court also held that such an imprisonment was illegal and violated the fundamental rights of the under-trial prisoners. Right to speedy trial was recognised as a part of Article 21 by virtue of this case and Justice Bhagwati heralded an era of Public Interest Litigation in India. 

Moving forward, in the case of Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court of India defined PIL as a part of law being viewed as a mechanism of social audit and the auditory function of law can be manifested through Public Interest Litigation only when a concerned citizen files a petition to ignite the jurisdiction of court to bring into light the violation of fundamental rights of the general public or a particular class or section of the society. 

In the landmark case of S.P Gupta v. Union of India (1989) it was held by the Supreme Court of India that any person acting with pro bono public interest can approach the Hon’ble High Courts and Supreme Court directly when he observes any violation of fundamental rights of  class of people. He shouldn’t be a meddlesome interloper and must have the genuine interest of the public at his heart. Up until the S.P. Gupta case, the courts were entertaining cases relating to public interest and relaxing the locus standi requirement on a case to case basis but post the judgement, the requirement for locus standi in a Public Interest Litigation was waived off and it was established that in presence of a legal injury, a PIL can be filed to seek justice for a class of people and PIL, therefore, is an important tool for participative justice. Much recently too PIL has been used as an important tool to redress situations of violation of fundamental rights and progress the situation of the public in India. 

Navtej Singh Johar v. State of India (2018) was a Public Interest Litigation matter which decriminalised Section 377 of Indian Penal Code. This Section criminalised same-sex consensual relationships. The Section was violative of the right to sexual orientation as a manifestation of Right to Life under Article 21 and Right to Equality under Article 14 and Right against Discrimination under Article 15. 

Similarly, the Puttaswamy judgement of 2018 recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right for Indian citizens guaranteed by the Constitution. These judgements have been seen as initiators of transformative constitutionalism which have progressed societal changes and have transformed the lives of many and therefore misuse of the PIL instrument should be harshly condemned and admonished. 

Abuse of concept of Public Interest Litigation

Even though Public Interest Litigation emerged as a process to help counter public injustices and meet the requirements of protecting constitutional rights and safeguards. There were previously concerns regarding the misuse of PIL mechanisms owing to their nature and rising amount of vexatious litigations in India. Especially in the current times, Supreme Court observes that a rising amount of Public Interest Litigation due to expanding and broadened horizons and ambit of PIL by the Supreme Court is a matter of concern as the interests of politics and many other aspects are influencing PIL cases and a large amount of PIL cases being filed of frivolous nature is leading up to abuse of state machinery and delay in cases where genuine interest of public is concerned. 

The court has observed that people are using PIL as a tool to fulfil their personal vendetta and harass innocent respondents. PILs being a cheaper form of litigation as compared to private litigation has become a weapon in the hands of people to harass their counterparts. The courts have warned such persons to not treat PILs as private litigation by imposing heavy costs and serve their political and business interests. The matter of discussion became such a heavy topic that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta went to the extent of stating that PILs are professional PIL shops and asked for abrogation of PILs in India. He stated that by filing frivolous PILs, petitioners are wasting valuable time of government officials who had to spend a lot of time drafting replies and responses against such petitions which harms the resources of the nation and governments. It has also been noted that PILs have been used regularly to gain publicity through news articles and conduct pseudo-activism on matters that truly don’t concern anyone. Effective safeguards must be developed to counter such abuses. 

Case laws on abuse of PIL Mechanisms

While in recent years, a flood of PILs are getting filled by people to fulfil their personal motives and gain publicity, it is a matter of severe concern. Some of the cases that are in resonance with the present case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991) are:

SPV Paul Raj v. Chief of Electoral Officer and Anr. (2021)

In the case of SPV Paul Raj v. Chief of Electoral Officer (2021), the petitioner reached out to the Madras High Court seeking it to apply its power as per the Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and issue writ of mandamus to direct the respondents for issuing orders to conduct mandatory medical tests of election contesting candidates for Tamil Nadu legislative assembly election which were due to be conducted. He stated that it is in the interest of a large number of voters to protect them from being contaminated by COVD-19. 

The Madras High Court found the petition to be completely frivolous and expected the petitioner to be careful in the future while filing such petitions. The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs on the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was banned by the court from filing petitions for one year without taking prior permission of the court. 

Lalit Valecha v. Union of India (2021)

In this case of Lalit Valecha v. Union of India (2021), a Public Interest Litigation was filed by the petitioner in the Delhi High Court to issue directions to news and television channels to strictly follow the Code of Ethics and Regulations when they are conducting reportage of sensitive matters related to death, crimes and mass suffering. It stated that such news channels must prevent themselves from spreading any form of negativity and mass hysteria due to such sad news broadcasts. It also stated that Freedom of Speech and Expression are not absolute rights and can be curtailed through reasonable restrictions on the grounds of public order. 

The court dismissed the petition and claimed that it was frivolous. It stated that in this case, the interest of the public is not in mind, as media reports are essential for warning people and raising concerns about specific disastrous events and crimes. The court warned the petitioner against such frivolous petitions and imposed costs for the same. 

Pratyush Prasanna and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi (2021) 

The Delhi High Court was approached in the case of Pratyush Prasanna and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi (2021), with a petition which stated the allegation that the Government of Delhi was found to be misusing public money. The petition prayed for the investigation of the funds collected by the government for COVID relief and the petitioner had made no effort to file an RTI under Right to Information Act, 2005 to discover the truth. He simply read a twitter post and filed the petition without conducting any research into the matter at hand. Due to this negligence, the court imposed a hefty sum of Rs. 50,000 as costs for misusing PIL machinery. 

Rajeev Suri v. The Delhi Development Authority (2021)

The case of Rajeev Suri v. The Delhi Development Authority, (2021) was initially filed in the Delhi High Court, but eventually the Supreme Court of India transferred the case to its jurisdiction. The petition attempted to challenge the creation of the Central Vista Project and stated that it would have severe environmental consequences. He stated that the way in which clearances were obtained for the specific project is wrong and illegal. He called for severe judicial scrutiny into the matter and stated that it should not go unchecked as it is a matter of political significance which also relates to matters of environment, land and heritage use. 

The SC noted that this case is an abuse of the concept of PILs and highly condemned the actions of the petitioner. It also clarified that the intent behind filing PILs is not to make the judiciary the supreme authority for making decisions on everyday political and policy matters or governance in general. It simply paves avenues for citizens concerned over injustice and discrimination owing to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 

Recommendations to prevent abuse of PILs

PILs serve a very important purpose, which is to protect the fundamental rights of concerned public and citizens from any form of violation. Once its essence gets diluted through frivolous litigation and personal interest, it stops being useful and fulfilling its purpose, and therefore it is extremely important to keep it protected from being abused or misused by people. The courts have to take certain measures like rejecting the PILs for entertaining them if they seem to be uncertain and frivolous, the cost imposed on these people should be higher so as to create stronger deterrence against filing cases to fulfil personal interest, the mass media must create awareness regarding the consequences of filing false PILs to create deterrence amongst such individuals who file PILs for publicity. It is also the responsibility of the lawyers too to deny representing PIL petitioners which seem frivolous and vexatious. 

Conclusion

The black letters of law are created for protecting citizens and society, but most of the laws are prone to abuse and misuse. Similarly, PILs emerged as a tool to enable participative justice but ended up getting abused by certain individuals to fulfil their personal interests. Therefore, it is highly important to understand the importance which PILs hold in our society to be able to use them properly for bringing about social change and finding remedies for violation of fundamental rights of sections/ classes of society. The present case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991) is an excellent example of how people attempt to fulfil their personal vendetta under the garb of public interest, and how they can be deterred by imposing costs and hefty fines. Lastly, as responsible citizens, it is also our duty to be responsible while utilising legal instruments which hold such high importance and not misuse them for our personal gains. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here