Guidelines to be kept in mind while filing a Public Interest Litigation or writ in High Court or Supreme Court

Time to time, Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have summarized Guidelines for filing public interest litigation, petitions.

In one judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, these guidelines are summarized as under:

The Courts may ordinarily allow PIL if :-

i. That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and relief is sought for its enforcement;

ii. That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;

iii. That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;

iv. That such person or group of persons is not a busybody of meddlesome interloper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;

v. That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public Authority being not justiciable in such litigation;

vi. That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set up of the country;

vii. That the State action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to be thrown out on technicalities;

viii. Public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the Court was of such a nature which required examination;

ix. That the person approaching the Court has come with clean hands, clean heart and clean objectives;

x. That before taking any action in public interest the Court must be satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politicians, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective of either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmailing or considerations extraneous to public interest.

A person who wants to file a PIL in any court must reflect on these before preparing his PIL.

Haresh Raichura
28/2/2013

Absconding Husbands -498A Case - Advertisements seen in newspapers - Case for preventing abuse

Husbands often complaint that Sec. 498a has been misused.

When a complaint by wife is filed, the initial tendency of husband is to avoid summons.

Then court issues warrant. Then he is not found!

Then Court, then issues proclamation requiring his presence in Court under sec 82 which is published in newspaper.

Today I read some advertisements in newspaper relating to 498A cases.

It would have been better if in such marriage offenses, bail are granted. Then parties can keep fighting in court.

The problem is, such cruelty is alleged to have happened in matrimonial home.

There will be no witnesses for wife. So how can she prove allegation except by her statement.

Same difficulty is with husband. How can husband prove that he said nothing, he did nothing, except by his statement.

Some conclusion can be reached only after parties are examined and cross examined.

Haresh Raichura
26/2/2013

Value of Statement of Nathuram Godse, given in Court before his conviction #Law

Many ppl give too much importance on Nathuram Godse's last statement in Court under Sec. 313.

In Courts we do not give much importance to such statements.

Here are the reasons:

If accuses comes forward to give statement on oath, other-side has right to cross examine, to put questions to him and to bring out lies and truths from what he is saying.

When accused, chooses not to come forward to give evidence on oath, but when he chooses only to give statements under Sec.313, where no questions can be asked to him, we do not believe in truth of such statements.

Secondly, mainly such statements are prepared by lawyers or his other advisors.

These are not words coming out directly from the mouth of accused.

In courts, we believe that statements made in court, but where other side is not permitted to question, such statements have no value.

Haresh Rauchura
24/2/2013