“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent justice, but there must never be a time we fail to protest”. – Elie Weisel

Justice is a thought that is based upon social equity. Justice emphasises reasonable, moral and fair treatment.

As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Public Interest Litigation means lawful activity in a court of law for the implementation of public or general interest, for which an individual may have monetary or other sorts of interest, by which their legal rights are affected.

The court must not allow the process to be abused. Some individuals with vested interests meddle with judicial process either by force of habit or from from having improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal or enrich themselves. They are often influenced by a desire to win cheap popularity. The petitions of such individuals deserve to be set aside by rejecting at the threshold, and in appropriate cases, with exemplary costs. The judiciary must exercise due caution and avoid falling into a political trap in the garb of PIL. In short, the use of public interest litigation should be regulated through self-restraint, by both, the activists as well as the Hon’ble members of judiciary. There should be mandatory provision for exemplary costs where PIL is found to be motivated and frivolous.

Justice Markandey Katju said, “Unfortunately the truth is that PIL’s are being entertained by many courts as a routine and the result is that dockets of most of the superior courts are flooded with PIL’s, most of which are frivolous or for which the judiciary has no remedy.” He further observed, “public interest litigation, has now-a-days become ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘private interest litigation’ or ‘politics interest litigation’, and most of PIL is largely blackmail”.

The improvement of PIL has revealed its pitfalls and disadvantages. Thus, the zenith court itself has been constrained to set out specific rules to represent the administration and transfer of PILs. What’s more, the misuse of PIL is likewise expanding alongside its developed and multifaceted use.

Just as a weapon implied for safeguard can similarly be utilized for offense, the bringing down of the locus standi necessity has allowed private interests to act like open interests. The misuse of PIL has turned out to be more widespread than its utilization. Original causes either retreated to the foundation or started to be seen with the suspicion created by spurious causes mooted by privately spurred interests in the mask of the purported open interests.

PIL builds up another law of the responsibility of the State for legitimate infringement, influencing the interests of the weaker components in the group.

To end with a statement by Justice Krishna Iyer: “Judicial activism gets its most astounding reward when its orders wipe a few tears from a few eyes”.

The proposals and suggestions which stream from this can be summarised as follows:
1. PIL petitions ought to be entertained and considered just when the courts are fulfilled of ‘gross infringement of rights’ of a group or person.
2. In the instance of PIL appeal, a tenet of ‘proper party’ be adopted rather than ‘a wronged party’.
3. Not just the High Courts, but even the lower courts should be focused towards PIL development.
4. A major part of a lawful guide center in bestowing legitimate legal information to the public for their rights, is vital.

Priyanka Desai (V-II)