The Supreme Court of India calls for Judicial restraint on PILs. It dismissed a public interest litigation petition seeking direction to the centre and the states to enact a ‘Road Traffic Safety Act’ to lay down regulations to prevent road accidents.
A Bench comprising Justice H.K.Sema and Justice Markandey Katju dismissed the public interest litigation petition filed by common cause, ‘In our opinion the prayers made in the petition require us to give directions of a legislative or executive nature which can only be given by the legislature or executive.’
Mr.Justice Sema who differed with Justice Markandey Katju with respect to most of the other observations said that the relief sought for in the petition was adequately addressed by the Motor Vehicles Act.
Mr.Markandey Katju in his judgment said that PIL has nowadays largely become ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Private Interest Litigation,’ or ‘Politics Interest Litigation’ or the latest trend ‘Paise Income Litigation’. He further stated,’much of PIL, is really a blackmail. PIL, which was initially created as a judicial tool to help the poor and weaker sections of society who could not afford to come to courts, has in course of time, largely developed into an uncontrollable Frankenstein and a nuisance which is threatening to choke the dockets of the superior courts obstructing the hearing the genuine and regular cases which have been waiting to be taken up for years together’
He further added, ’The people must know that courts are not the remedy for all ills in society. The problem confronting the nation are so huge that it will be creating an illusion in the minds of the people that judiciary can solve all the problems?’
Mr.Markandey Katju also said that though there is a great deal of poverty in this country, courts cannot issue a general directive to abolish poverty since it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Similarly, courts cannot issue a directive to abolish unemployment, to stop price rise, to eradicate corruption from this country and Article 21 is not a ‘Brahmastra’ for the judiciary to justify every kind of directive.
Mr.Justice Katju further said that the justification given for judicial activism is that the Executive and the Legislature have failed in performing their functions.If the Legislature and the Executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise peoperly in the next elections and vote for candidates who will fulfil their expectations.
However, when other agencies or wings of the state overstep their constitutional limits, the aggrieved parties can always approach the courts and seek redress against such transgression. However, when the courts themselves transgress their limits, the only check on the courts is its restraint.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, K.G.Balakrishnan has said that the Supreme Court would lay down guidelines with respect to PILs.
It is glad to note that the Supreme Court of India has well defined its limits and always be conscious and alert not to transgress it.
Leave Your Comments