Balwant Singh Chaufal safeguards
governing PILs
In
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, (2010) 3 SCC
402, the Supreme Court laid down safeguards to preserve the purity of Public
Interest Litigation and prevent its misuse. The principal directions appear in
paragraph 181 of the judgment and continue to be applied by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court judgment applying paragraph 181
1. Encourage genuine PILs and
discourage motivated petitions;
Courts
must encourage petitions filed bona fide for the protection of public rights,
particularly where disadvantaged persons cannot approach the Court themselves.
At
the same time, courts must discourage petitions filed for;
(a)
personal
gain;
(b)
private
advantage;
(c)
political
motivation;
(d)
publicity;
(e)
business
rivalry;
(f)
settling
personal scores; or
(g)
any
other oblique purpose.
2. High Courts must formulate PIL
rules;
Every
High Court must frame appropriate rules governing the institution and
consideration of PILs. Such rules should regulate:
(i)
disclosure
of the petitioner’s identity and credentials;
(ii)
source
of information;
(iii) existence of personal
interest;
(iv) previous litigation
concerning the subject matter; and
(v)
verification
of the alleged public injury.
3. Prima facie verification of
petitioner’s credentials;
Before
entertaining a PIL, the Court must prima facie examine the petitioner’s
credentials.
The
petitioner should disclose;
(A)
who
he is;
(B) what public or social
work he has performed;
(C) whether he has
sufficient knowledge of the subject;
(D) how he obtained the
relevant documents;
(E)
whether
he has any personal, political, commercial or property interest; and
(F)
whether
he is acting at the instance of somebody else.
A
bare assertion that the petitioner is a “social worker” or “public-spirited person”
is not necessarily sufficient.
4. Prima facie verification of the
correctness of pleadings;
The
Court must satisfy itself that the contents of the petition are prima facie
correct.
The
PIL should not be entertained merely upon:
(1)
hearsay
information;
(2)
newspaper
reports without verification;
(3)
vague
allegations;
(4)
private
assumptions;
(5)
unauthenticated
photographs;
(6)
disputed
calculations; or
(7)
documents
whose source has not been disclosed.
The
petitioner must place reasonably reliable material before the Court.
5. Existence of substantial public
interest;
The
Court must be satisfied that a substantial public interest is genuinely
involved.
The
dispute must affect the public or a significant section of the community. It
should not merely concern:
(1)
ownership
of a particular property;
(2)
rivalry
between neighbouring owners;
(3)
an
individual building dispute;
(4)
enforcement
of one person’s private right; or
(5)
a
grievance for which the directly affected person can approach the competent
forum.
Merely
using expressions such as “public safety,” “public nuisance” or “public
interest” does not convert a private dispute into a PIL.
6. Priority only to matters of genuine
urgency;
PILs
involving genuine public injury and urgency should receive priority.
However,
an assertion of urgency must have a factual foundation. Imminent danger should
ordinarily be supported by credible materials such as:
(a)
official
inspection reports;
(b)
expert
opinions;
(c)
complaints
from affected residents;
(d)
evidence
of accidents or hazards; or
(e)
findings
of a competent authority.
7. Court must examine the real object
of the petition;
The
Court must ensure that the PIL is genuinely intended to redress public harm or
public injury.
The
Court should examine whether the stated public cause is merely a camouflage
for;
(i)
personal
enmity;
(ii)
family
or neighbourhood rivalry;
(iii) property disputes;
(iv) political hostility;
(v)
commercial
competition;
(vi) pressure tactics; or
(vii) an attempt to
prejudice pending civil or criminal proceedings.
8. Exemplary costs against busybodies;
Where
a PIL is filed by a busybody or meddlesome interloper for an extraneous or
ulterior purpose, the Court may dismiss it at the threshold and impose
exemplary costs.
The
object is both compensatory and deterrent: the private parties should not be
compelled to defend motivated litigation presented under the attractive label
of public interest.
Application
to Manik Dewan v. Rajpur–Sonarpur Municipality
Applying
these safeguards, the private respondents may raise the following objections;
Inadequate
credentials;
The
petitioner describes himself as a local resident, social worker and
public-spirited person but does not provide particulars of;
(a)
his
social activities;
(b)
any
organisation represented by him;
(c)
his
work concerning municipal governance or public safety;
(d)
his
relationship with the private respondents;
(e)
his
interest in the disputed property; or
(f)
the
source from which he obtained private deeds and records.
This
may not satisfy the requirement of prima facie verification of credentials.
Uncertain
source of information;
The
petition states that the petitioner “came to know from the locality” about
several matters and acquired information regarding the old criminal case
shortly before filing the PIL.
The
sources of many allegations—including land grabbing, forged documents,
antisocial activities and operation of a night club—are not clearly disclosed
or supported by direct evidence.
Correctness
of allegations not independently established;
No
technical report from a municipal engineer, building surveyor, Fire Services
authority or land-revenue officer has been produced to establish;
(1)
the
alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan;
(2)
the
actual constructed area;
(3)
unauthorised
change of use;
(4)
absence
of fire-safety arrangements;
(5)
structural
danger; or
(6)
encroachment
upon three bighas of land.
The
petition is therefore founded largely upon the petitioner’s own conclusions.
Substantial
public interest is not demonstrated;
The
petition concerns one identified property and particular private respondents.
No association of local inhabitants has joined the proceeding, and no
affidavits of affected neighbours appear to have been produced.
The
alleged public injury is stated in general language without supporting traffic,
noise, fire-safety or police reports.
Possibility
of a disguised private dispute
The
petition extensively challenges title deeds, mutation, ownership, possession
and an old criminal case. Those issues substantially resemble a private property
dispute rather than a matter affecting the public at large.
The
Court may therefore enquire whether the building complaint is being used as a
platform to pursue a dispute over ownership and possession.
That the
instant proceeding fails to satisfy the mandatory safeguards governing Public
Interest Litigation as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh
Chaufal & Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402. The petitioner has
neither disclosed sufficient particulars of his credentials and alleged social
activities nor disclosed the true and complete source of his information. The
allegations are substantially founded upon hearsay, disputed private documents
and unverified assumptions unsupported by any report of a competent municipal
engineer, surveyor, revenue authority or fire-safety authority. No substantial
injury affecting the public or a determinate section thereof has been
demonstrated. On the contrary, the petition seeks adjudication of disputed
questions concerning title, registered deeds, mutation, possession and pending
criminal proceedings relating to a specific private property. The proceeding is
therefore a private dispute dressed in the garb of public interest and is
liable to be dismissed at the threshold, with costs, in terms of the principles
laid down in Balwant Singh Chaufal.
No comments:
Post a Comment