LI Network
Published on: 14 September 2023 at 17:22 IST
The Delhi High Court issued a stern warning against the misuse of Public Interest Litigation, emphasizing that frivolous petitions can lead to significant delays in addressing the concerns of genuine litigants with valid grievances.
In a case titled Rajat Kapoor Advocate v. Union of India & Ors, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad stressed the need for courts to ensure that individuals do not exploit the liberal provisions governing PILs and thereby squander precious judicial time.
The judgment highlighted the purpose of PILs, stating that they were developed by the courts through various rulings to address matters of public interest and assist individuals who have suffered public harm or whose fundamental rights have been violated, often going unnoticed or unheard. However, it has become evident that courts frequently encounter frivolous PILs that contribute to substantial delays in resolving cases brought forth by genuine litigants with legitimate grievances.
The case in question involved a PIL submitted to the High Court by advocate Rajat Kapoor. Kapoor’s plea sought various directives related to mandatory helmet usage, insurance requirements for electric vehicles, and the standardized production of non-combustible batteries.
After careful examination, the Court determined that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is already applied to electric vehicles. Furthermore, the Central government had already established standards for battery manufacturing.
The Bench noted that the petitioner’s PIL relied solely on two news reports and that the claims and allegations presented lacked substantiation.
In its ruling, the Court expressed its concern that frivolous PILs, rather than facilitating access to justice, obstruct it by consuming valuable judicial time that could be better utilized for addressing legitimate legal matters.
Advocate Rajat Kapoor represented himself in the case, while the Central government was represented by Advocates Gurdas Khurana and Arnav Kumar. The Delhi government was represented by Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Anuj Aggarwal, along with Advocates Ayushi Bansal, Arshya Singh, and Aakash Dahiya. This verdict serves as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with filing PILs and the need to use them as a tool for genuine public interest rather than frivolous pursuits.
