Change in tradition of Chief Justice alone hearing PILs

Being the master of the roster, the CJ on retaining PILs relating to women and children, has distributed PIL portfolios to at least four other benches. While earlier the third bench led by Justice S Manikumar was dealing with a bulk of the PILS, now, the bench led by Justice M Sathyanarayanan has been receiving most of the PILs filed after a portfolio change that came into effect on November 8.

This has resulted in many of the part-heard PILs being moved to the bench led by Justice Sathyanarayanan resulting in fresh hearing coming forth in most of the PILs that have been admitted. However, the process has drawn a mixed response with many saying the such a change is bound to dilute matters, and cause a dent in speedy disposals while for few others, the CJ is the master of the roster and it is her prerogative to handle PILs or not.

Advocate M Radhakrishnan said “Since the inception of PILs, they have been heard in almost all the high courts only by the CJ. Only when the CJ is not available the PILs goes to other benches. Even in the Supreme Court, PILs are normally heard by the first bench.”

Pointing out that the hearing of PILs by the bench comprising the CJ adds more weight since all PILs are mostly against the government, he further said “When a PIL is heard by a different bench there is a conflict of views. This can be avoided if all the PILS are heard by the first bench. Moreover, it is common knowledge that when a PIL is decided, hundreds of litigations would automatically be decided without them approaching the court. This is the main reason why the CJ should hear all PILs without exception.”

One crucial aspect that irks most, is that when there is a change of portfolio of judges, PILs would suffer. “There will be part-heard matters with a particular judge, which will be transferred to some other judge in the event of a portfolio change. When PILs are distributed among two or more benches, it will result in only delayed justice and not speedy justice,” added Radhakrishnan.

Echoing a similar view, activist Jawaharlal Shanmugam said “There is an enormous respect to a PIL when the CJ handles and delivers an order. There is also a certain amount of fear among the government respondents that the first bench is showing serious cognizance and is personally monitoring the case and its developments. The government is forced to act in such instances”

“Moreover, the CJ is from another state and the importance of case takes precedence over other factors and only merits in the case counts. My personal view is that only the CJ should handle all PILs as per the traditions being followed. The litigant also feels confident in bringing a serious public issue to seek justice before the CJ,” stressed Jawaharlal Shanmugam.

With many PILs being disposed of with costs and considered a waste of court’s time of late, it is hoped that PILs, which remain the only solace left to the public, especially the poor, to get their grievances redressed is given due importance and care.