LI Network
Published on: October 16, 2023 at 16:45 IST
The Supreme Court of India has levied a penalty of Rs 5 lakhs on advocate Ashok Pandey for initiating a frivolous public interest litigation. Pandey’s petition challenged the oath taken by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, alleging irregularities.
The court expressed its frustration with the abuse of PILs for self-promotion and emphasized that such actions not only waste the court’s time and resources but also detract from the intended purpose of PILs.
Exasperated by the rampant misuse of public interest litigation, a legal mechanism designed to amplify the voices of the marginalized and underprivileged in society, the Supreme Court, on Friday, imposed a substantial cost of Rs 5 lakhs on advocate Ashok Pandey. His PIL had questioned the manner in which the Bombay High Court’s Chief Justice took the oath.
Pandey contended that during the oath administered by the Governor of Maharashtra, the Chief Justice did not use the word ‘I,’ which he deemed irregular. He also raised concerns about the sanctity of the oath-taking ceremony due to the absence of representatives from the Goa and Daman and Diu benches of the Bombay High Court.
Typically inclined to support legitimate causes that impact society or the public in a significant way, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expressed astonishment at the extent to which the noble instrument of PIL has been misused by litigants seeking publicity.
The court emphasized that once the oath is administered by the appropriate constitutional authority and endorsed by the High Court’s Chief Justice, there can be no doubt about its validity.
Chief Justice Chandrachud remarked, “Frivolous attempts to use PILs for the sake of publicity divert the court’s time and attention, in addition to consuming the valuable man-hours of the court staff in preparing these petitions for hearings. The time has come to impose significant costs on individuals who file such frivolous PILs.”
Consequently, the court imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on Pandey and stipulated that a failure to pay would empower the government to recover the amount as revenue dues. In the event of non-payment, the government would have the right to sell the petitioner’s immovable property to collect the outstanding dues.
Also Read: How to draft a Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court?