PIL: NOT A REMEDY FOR EVERY PUBLIC CAUSE

In the case of “Nikhil Padha, Human Right Activist vs. Chairman Human Rights Commission,” the court mentioned that if the bona fide intention of the petitioners is not as transparent as it should be, then all the public interest litigations should not be entertained by the courts at any given amount of time and stage.

In the context of political rivalry, the apex court clearly held that all the Public interest litigations filed by political parties as to gain something from the opponent political parties and their rivalries cannot be clearly at the best interest of the public. Hence, it should not be entertained. In the aforementioned case law, the intent of the petitioner was doubted in a manner by the court that the petitioner did not actually intent to establish the Human Right Commission but to scandalise or defame the court of law and the ruling Government party against the removal of article 370 of the Constitution.

The court dismissed the PIL filed by the petitioner and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on petitioner of the aforementioned case. The court recognized that petitioner had mala fide intention and did not file the PIL in good faith on the grounds that a 25 year old student who is recently graduated out of college cannot claim to be a human right activist along with which the petition filed by the petitioner did not explicitly mentioned any kind of activity or event which would ensure that the petitioner had intention to pray from court for reopening of Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Women Commission, Accountability Commission and State Information Commission which were closed on account of the removal of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India.

Thus, the apex court held that any or all kind of Public Interest Litigation which are filed with mala fide intention to scandalise, defame, abuse and defame the process and court of law should not be taken into consideration by the courts at any stage.