Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Others
(1992) 4 SCC 305, the court rightly cautioned that
expanded role of courts in modern 'social' state
demands for greater judicial responsibility. The PIL has
given a new hope to millions of justice-starved people of
this country. The court must encourage genuine PIL
and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.
The Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
Kushum Lata vs Union Of India And Ors on 12 July, 2006
In the case of Kushum Lata vs. Union of India &
others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 180, their Lordships of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that, when there is
material to show that a petition styled as a Public Interest
Litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal
disputes, the said petition is to be thrown out. Their
Lordships have further held that Public Interest Litigation,
which has now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law, should not be "publicity interest
litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "politics interest
litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". Their
Lordships have held as under:
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal &
others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402, their Lordships, after
considering the entire gamut of Public Interest Litigations
have laid down as many as eight tests to determine the true
nature of Public Interest Litigations. Their Lordships have
held as under:
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
In BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of
India & Others AIR 2002 SC 350, this Court recognized
that there have been, in recent times, increasing
instances of abuse of public interest litigation.
Accordingly, the Court has devised a number of
strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of
public interest litigation should not be allowed to be
used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly, the
Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to
individuals "acting bonafide." Secondly, the Supreme
Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary
costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious
public interest litigations. Thirdly, the Supreme Court
has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in
entertaining the public interest litigations.
S.P. Anand, Indore vs H.D. Deve Gowda & Others on 6 November, 1996
In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others
AIR 1997 SC 272, the Court warned that it is of utmost
importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of
this Court "seeking a waiver of the locus standi rule
must exercise restraint in moving the Court by not
plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed".
Sanjeev Bhatnagar vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 May, 2005
In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India &
Others AIR 2005 SC 2841, this Court went a step
further by imposing a monetary penalty against an
Advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL
petition. The Court found that the petition was devoid
of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity
interest litigation". Thus, the Court dismissed the
petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004
In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) this
court again cautioned and observed that the court
must look into the petition carefully and ensure that
there is genuine public interest involved in the case
before invoking its jurisdiction. The court should be
careful that its jurisdiction is not abused by a person
or a body of persons to further his or their personal
causes or to satisfy his or their personal grudge or
grudges. The stream of justice should not be allowed to
be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.