Courting publicity

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), considered a panacea in redressing the grievances of the neglected, alienated and marginalised sections of the society, has now largely come to be dubbed as Private Interest Litigation, Political Interest Litigation and Publicity Interest Litigation. On the other hand, the steep increase in such PILs reaching the Madras High Court (MHC) is said to reflect the poor-functioning of the government, leaving the public with no choice but to approach the court for relief. 

The MHC has been witness to numerous such frivolous PILs that Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had remarked in open court “We don’t have a magic wand in our hands to resolve every issue be it road laying or some sundry work which needs State funding.” In fact, the Chief Justice, wary of PILs relating to encroachments and unauthorised constructions flooding the court, said, “We are inundated with petitions owing to failure of the authorities concerned to respond to the representation and take a decision one way or other. A division bench of this Court cannot be made into a post office for deciding the representations.” 

He also held that “Unless appropriate measures are taken by the State Government, we put the Government Pleader to notice that we will have no option but to call upon the Secretaries concerned of the different departments to attend the Court in the morning for an hour or more, so that the non-dealing with the representations is attended to, rather than wasting the time of the Court.”

Senior advocate V Suresh, said, “PILs vary from court to court. But at the MHC the PILs that come up reveals a serious paralysis of governance. What should normally be dealt with at the administrative domain like illegal construction to allegation of illegalities and irregularities in various departments end up in court. So much so that the cases range from the ordinary to the most profound and the court is trying to manage all of them.” 

Ever since Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul took over on June 26, 2014, the high court has come across as many as 1,661 such PILs. But, until November 7, 2016, a total of 2,983 such pleas, including old ones, have been disposed. Of them, eight PILs were disposed with costs. 

However, the concept of PILs which had come into vogue four decades ago, has bestowed the Madras High Court an impressive record of resolving many issues affecting the public. Recently, it has been dealing with a whole range of aspects like installation of ramps in private hospitals, fire safety norms in commercial buildings, adherence to parking regulations, clearing storm water drains, desilting of the Adyar river, the Cooum and Buckingham Canal, protection of heritage buildings and temples, illegal hoardings, stalling political parties from defacing public walls, removal of encroachments on water bodies, protecting water bodies and agricultural lands. However, on all these issues the intervention is in the form of a nudge to get the government execute its mandatory function. 

Social activist and Change India, director, A Narayanan, who has been instrumental in finding relief for manual scavengers through a PIL, said “Tamil Nadu government’s lack of trust in civil society members and failing to engage them is behind a whole lot of PILs. But unfortunately, the government which ignores people’s grievance at the first place and its mandatory duties is naturally insensitive to PILs and even court orders. In short, there is no tangible outcome owing to court directions except creating public opinion.” 

It is also said that the court, aware that the government’s failure to act as per its directions would result in a spate of contempt pleas, is also playing it safe. On most occasions it merely directs the government to either file a status report or a progress report to gauge the extent of action and seriousness. But, many moving such PILs say it is common knowledge that such progress reports are nothing but a case of window dressing and must be taken with a pinch of salt.

While dealing with a PIL on manual scavenging and clearing storm water drains the first bench had said, “The court cannot desilt drains and the endeavour can only be to ensure that the elected government of the day truly reflects the will of the people by carrying out various administrative functions. And, if statutory provisions were violated, the court would give the nudge to ensure that they are complied with.”

However, the high court in several instances has summoned various bureaucrats and police officials to court, for non-compliance of its directions. In fact, contempt proceedings has been kept pending against the Member Secretary, CMDA, for the failure in framing rules for regularising unauthorised construction despite clear cut directions and ultimatums. The PWD was also slammed of lethargy for its failure to visit the Port Trust to even check the efficacy of a gadget for desilting water bodies. 

Besides the PILs, the court has also taken suo motu cognisance of certain issues ranging from protection of endangered species to safeguarding heritage temples. But in one such instance, where the government had failed to sanction adequate funds for the judiciary, a full bench on directing the government to file an affidavit as to whether it’s in a state of financial emergency also threatened it saying, “In such an event, Article 360 (financial emergency) of the Constitution would come into play on the satisfaction of the President.” 

It is said that every matter of public interest cannot end up being public interest litigation. Also, it requires an able judge to keep a PIL on the right track and fulfil the objectives for which it was originally designed. But at the same time PILs can’t be mere representations and the court cannot be made a post office to merely forward them.