Supreme Court slams PILs filed to settle political scores

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday slammed PILs which sought a probe into the death of Judge Loya, holding that they were filed with an oblique motive to settle personal and political scores.  

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud pointed out that these PILs were purportedly instituted to protect the independence of the judiciary. But by casting unfounded aspersions on the judicial officers who had accompanied Judge Loya, the petitioners have revealed the real motive of these proceedings, which is to bring the judiciary into disrepute on the basis of scurrilous allegations.

Expressing anguish as to how the PIL is used to settle personal scores, the bench said over time, it has been realised that this jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly misutilised by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end are petitions which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of public interest litigation.

“The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the high courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest, detract from the time and attention, which courts must devote to genuine causes. This court has a long list of pending cases where the personal liberty of citizens is involved,” the bench said.

“It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation. There is a grave danger that if this state of affairs were allowed to continue, it would seriously denude the efficacy of the judicial system by detracting from the ability of the court to devote its time and resources to cases, which legitimately require attention. Worse still, such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process,” the court said.

It said the conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt.