Oh, My Lord! It is too much, really too much in this case

What do the courts do when a petitioner files a case which is not maintainable, or which is filed under different provisions of law? Usually, in such a situation the petition is returned giving the reasons for doing so or the petitioner is asked to rectify the anomalies or deficiencies in the petition and resubmit the same within the given time. At best, if the petition is against the law or any rules thereunder and this fact has gone unnoticed during scrutiny, the court may dismiss it in limine.

The courts are also empowered to impose costs on the petitioner for resorting to filing frivolous, vexatious or malicious cases without any ground. There have also been several instances where petitioners were fined for misusing the instrument of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to settle personal score or for private gain. Considering the fact that our judiciary is overburdened with the pending cases, one can justify imposition of cost or fine to some extent. The provision for imposition of cost and fine is also necessary in order to discourage the habitual litigants who indulge in ‘filing spree’ of cases for trivial reasons.

Having said so, now let us advert to this latest case, where the apex court had slammed a hefty cost of Rs.1 lakh on the petitioner ostensibly for ‘misusing the judicial process.’ Apparently, the division bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman and Navin Sinha took serious view of the matter that the petitioner was asking which was not justiciable.

This sordid situation arose on December 15 in the course of hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1185/2017 filed by Chaitanya Sravanthi against the Union of India. The petitioner is an NGO from Visakhapatnam working in the area of women empowerment in slums. According to the petitioner, it conducted a survey with the help of Andhra University on alcohol consumption in slums of Visakhapatnam, which revealed distressing results. Citing a report of the National Institute of Mental Health in 2016, the NGO submitted that it revealed correlation between mental disorders and harmful use of alcohol.

When the matter came up for hearing, the bench asked the Counsel for the petitioner to read to read Article 37 of the Constitution, according to which Directive Principles are not justiciable. Terming this PIL a misuse of the judicial process, the bench directed imposition of the cost of Rs 1 lakh to be deposited by the petitioner with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. The Counsel’s plea to waive the cost in view of the credentials of the NGO was rejected.

The petitioner in the PIL had sought an audit on manufacture, distribution and supply, sale and consumption of various types of liquor attributing increasing alcohol consumption to the increase in violent incidents and illness. It prayed for an appropriate Writ to the Union of India and other respondents to prepare an action plan with regard to creating awareness on ill-effects of consumption of alcohol, taking stringent action on suppliers of alcohol by strengthening the investigative mechanism, seizure and confiscation of alcohol.

Thus, indisputably the petition is a PIL as it espouses the public cause. It seeks to impose prohibition to ensure healthier society. Under the directive principles, the State shall to strive for total prohibition. True, the petitioner, an NGO prayed for the imposition of prohibition which was also a pet social reform for the yesteryear’s national leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoda Bhave, Thakkar Bapa, Ravishankar Maharaj and Prabhudas Patwari, besides many regional leaders.

The makers of the Constitution also realised the need for total prohibition and that is why they incorporated in the Constitution as a directive principle. As is well-known, the directive principles are nothing but future agenda for the nation. As the power to enact laws is vested in the legislature, judiciary does not and cannot play the role of lawmaker.

The common man, more an NGO with the members with diverse academic background, cannot be expected to know this technical difference as to what is justiciable and what is not justiciable in the world’s biggest Constitution that is ours. It is the motive that deserves due consideration in such a matter. Obviously, the motive of the petitioner was good. The PIL was not devised to gain any personal gain. Further, the petitioner’s track record has been good and perhaps there is no history that can be used to brand the petitioner as a chronic litigant.

Therefore, if the petition was not maintainable, that should have been expressly informed by the court’s Registry. Still worse, if at all imposition of cost was considered necessary then the same should have been imposed on the counsel of the petitioner and also on the scrutiny officer/s for being lax. Further, when the number of drunken driving casualties is rising at an alarming rate and hooch tragedies have almost become the order of the day, imposing such a heavy cost for no fault of the petitioner is to say the least, too much. When the Prime Minister himself is encouraging people to come forward with their views on any important subject that would do good to the country, punishing the crusader of total prohibition will paint the petitioner in bad light and make him an object of ridicule, particularly by the blind supporters of anti-prohibition lobby! Hope, the Supreme Court would be magnanimous by revoking its Order of hefty cost in a suo motu move.

Prez for local lingo in courts
Supporting our oft-repeated stand in these columns, the President of India, Ram Nath Kovind, has favoured the idea of switching over to local languages by all courts in the country.

The President after laying the foundation stone of the ‘Nyaya Gram project’ of the Allahabad High Court emphasised on the need for accessible and affordable justice and added,:“ Judgement, as far as possible, should be delivered in local languages, so that the litigant could understand it easily and in a much better way.” He also suggested that if the practice of arguing in local language gains momentum, it would make it easier for the common man to understand the proceedings.

Dr H C Upadhyay