STATE OF UTIARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL & OTHERS

89Copy pinpoint89. This court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others AIR 1991 SC 420 observed that under Article 21 of the Constitution people have the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has C right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.

90Copy pinpoint90. The case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others D (1988) 1 sec 471, relates to pollution caused by the trade effluents discharged by tanneries into Ganga river in Kanpur. The court called for the report of the Committee of experts and gave directions to save the environment and ecology. It was held that "in Common Law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the pollution of the water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewage from di,Scharging such sewage into the river. But in the present case the petitioner is not a riparian owner. He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition cannot be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which is widerspread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to move the Supreme Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 733

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

which impose duties on the municipal authorities and the A Boards constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974".

91Copy pinpoint91. In Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others AIR 1996 SC 2715, this court ruled that precautionary 8 principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. This court declared Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) to be part of the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment.

92Copy pinpoint92. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others AIR 1988 C SC 1037, this court observed that the effluent discharged in river Ganga from a tannery is ten times noxious when compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any urban area on its banks. The court further observed that the financial capacity of the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant without requiring them to establish primary treatment · plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in existence for the adverse effect on the public at large.

93Copy pinpoint93. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others AIR 1997 SC 734, this court observed that in order to preserve and protect the ancient monument Taj Mahal from sulphurdioxide emission by industries near Taj Mahal, the court ordered 299 F industries to ban the use of coke/coal. The court further directed them to shift-over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or re- locate them.

94Copy pinpoint94. In A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayadu G (Retd.) & Others (1999) 2 SCC 718, this Court quoted A. Fritsch, "Environmental Ethics: Choices for Concerned Citizens". The same is reproduced as under:

"The basic insight of ecology is that all living things exist H

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

95Copy pinpoint95. The court in this case gave emphasis that the directions of the court should meet the requirements of public interest, environmental protection, elimination of pollution and sustainable development. While ensuring sustainable development, it must be kept in view that there is no danger to the environment or to the ecology.

96Copy pinpoint96. In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Others AIR 2004 SC 1834, while maintaining the balance between economic development and environmental protection, the court observed as under:

"26. Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm E Declaration giving broad parameters and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are of relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides that the natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna especially representative samples of natural eco-systems must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the 4th principle says "man has special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wild life and its habitat which are now gravely imperiled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature conservation including wild life must, therefore, receive importance in planning for economic developments". These two principles highlight the need to factor in considerations of

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 735

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] the environment while providing for economic development. The need for economic development has been dealt with in Principle 8 where it is said that "economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for improvement of the quality of life"."

97Copy pinpoint97. On sustainable development, one of us (Bhandari, J.) in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa & Others AIR 2006 SC 2038, observed that there has to be balance between sustainable development and environment. This Court observed that before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment; State D Industrial Areas Development Board to incorporate the condition of allotment to obtain clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board before the land is allotted for development. The said directory condition of allotment of lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be sanctioned in.future.

98Copy pinpoint98. In another important decision of this Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others (2000) 6 SCC 213, this Court was of the opinion that Articles 48A and 51-A(g) have to be considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution. Any disturbance of the basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for "life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21. In the matter of enforcement of rights under Article 21, this Court, besides enforcing the provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given effect to Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 and has held that if those rights are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have H

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A suffered due to that disturbance. In order to protect the "life", in order to protect "environment" and in order to protect "air, water and soil" from pollution, this Court, through its various judgments has given effect to the rights available, to the citizens and persons alike, under Article 21. B

99Copy pinpoint99. The court also laid emphasis on the principle of Polluter-pays. According to the court, pollution is a civil wrong. It is a tort committed against the community as a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay damages or compensation for restoration of the environment and ecology.

100Copy pinpoint100. In Managing Director, A.P.S.R. T.C. v. S. P. Satyanarayana AIR 1998 SC 2962, this Court referred to the White Paper published by the Government of India that the vehicular pollution contributes 70% of the air pollution as compared to 20% in 1970. This Court gave comprehensive directions to reduce the air pollution on the recommendation of an Expert Committee of Bhure Lal appointed by this Court.

101Copy pinpoint101. In Re. Noise Pollution AIR 2005 SC 3136, this Court was dealing with the issue of noise pollution. This Court was of the opinion that there is need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in our country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which noise pollution creates and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit by preventing generation and emission of noise pollution.

102Copy pinpoint102. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Others (1996) 5 SCC 281 the main grievance in the petition is that a notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones which regulates the activities in the said zones has not been implemented or enforced. This has led to continued degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. The court observed that while economic H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGrl 737

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.

103Copy pinpoint103. In S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Others (1997) 2 C SCC 87, this Court dealt with a public interest petition filed by the Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organization working for the upliftment of the weaker section of society, wherein the petitioner sought the enforcement of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated 19.2.1991 and stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. This Court passed significant directions as under:

1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority conferring on the said authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal areas, seashore, waterfront and other coastal areas and specially to deal with the situation created by the shrimp culture industry in coastal States. F

2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement "the Precautionary principle" and "the Polluter Pays" principles.

3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are G covered by the prohibition contained in para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp culture pond can be constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the CRZ notification. H

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 1 S.C.R.

A This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved traditional types of technologies (as defined in Alagarswami report) which are practised in the coastal low lying B areas.

4. All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/ shrimp culture ponds operating/set up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the CRZ Notification shall be demolished and removed from c the said area before March 31, 1997.

5. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands, land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes D shall not be used/converted for construction of the shrimp culture ponds.

6. No acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/ shrimp culture ponds shall be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake and Pulicat lake E (including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and Nelapattu).

7. Acquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds already operating and functioning in F the said area of 1000 meter shall be closed and demolished before March 31, 1997.

8. The Court also directed that the shrimp industries functioning within 1000 meter from the Coastal G Regulation Zone shall be liable to compensate the affected persons on the basis of the "polluter pays" principle.

9. The authority was directed to compute the compensation under two heads namely, for H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 739

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.)

reversing the ecology and for payment to A individuals.

10. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be deposited under a sep~rate head called "Environment Protection Fund" and shall be 8 utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by the authority and also for restoring the damaged environment.

104Copy pinpoint104. The Court also granted substantial costs to the petitioners. C

105Copy pinpoint105. The courts because of vast destruction of environment, ecology, forests, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. gave directions in a large number of cases in the larger public interest. The courts made a serious endeavour to protect and 0 preserve ecology, environment, forests, hills, rivers, marine life, wildlife etc. etc. This can be called the second phase of the public interest litigation in India.

THE TRANSPARENCY AND PROBITY IN GOVERNANCE - PHASE-Ill OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION E

106Copy pinpoint106. In the 1990's, the Supreme Court expanded the ambit and scope of public interest litigation further. The High Courts also under Article 226 followed the Supreme Court and passed a number of judgments, orders or directions to unearth corruption and maintain probity and morality in the governance of the State. The probity in governance is a sine qua non for an efficient system of administration and for the development of the country and an important requirement for ensuring probity in governance is the absence of corruption. This may broadly be called as the third phase of the Public Interest Litigation. The Supreme Court and High Courts have passed significant orders.

107Copy pinpoint107. The case of Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another AIR 1998 SC 889 is an example of its kind. In that H

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A case, the petitioner, who was a journalist, filed a public interest litigation. According to him, the prime investigating agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Revenue authorities failed to perform their legal obligation and take appropriate action when they found, during investigation with B a terrorist, detailed accounts of vast payments, called 'Jain diaries', made to influential politicians and bureaucrats and direction was also sought in case of a similar nature that may occur hereafter. A number of directions were issued by the Supreme Court. The Court in that case observed that "it is trite C that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain power to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people."

108Copy pinpoint108. Another significant case is Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' & Another v. Union of India & Others (2006) 6 SCC

D 613. This public interest litigation relates to the large scale defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of crores of rupees in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar. It was said that the respondents had interfered with the appointment of the public prosecutor. This court gave significant directions in this case.

109Copy pinpoint109. In yet another case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (2007) 1 SCC 110, a project known as "Taj Heritage Corridor Project" was initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities. The Court directed for a detailed enquiry which was carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation G (CBI). On the basis of the CBI report, the Court directed registration of FIR and made further investigation in the matter. The court questioned the role played by the concerned Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh. By the intervention of this Court, the said project was stalled.

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 741

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

110Copy pinpoint110. These are some of the matters where the efficacy, efhics and morality of the governmental authorities to perform their statutory duties was directed under the scanner of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

111Copy pinpoint111. In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others (2007) 12 B SCALE 91, in another public interest litigation, a question was raised before the court whether the Apex Court should consider the correctness of the order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister and Environment Minister after they were found responsible in 'Taj Heritage Corridor Project". It was held that the judiciary can step in where it finds the actions on the part of the legislature or the executive to be illegal or unconstitutional.

112Copy pinpoint112. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Another AIR 2003 SC 3277, two writ petitions were filed in public interest by the petitioner calling in the question of decision of the government to sell majority of shares in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and violative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977. The F court upheld the petitions until the statutes are amended appropriately.

113Copy pinpoint113. These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court and the High Courts broadened the scope of public interest litigation and also entertained petitions to ensure that G in governance of the State, there is transparency and no extraneous considerations are taken into consideration except the public interest. These cases regarding probity in governance or corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can be placed in the third phase of public interest litigation. H

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 1 S.C.R.

114Copy pinpoint114. We would also like to deal with some cases where the court gave direction to the executives and the legislature to ensure that the existing laws are fully implemented.

115Copy pinpoint115. In Pareena Swarup v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCALE 84, a member of the Bar of this court filed a public 8 interest litigation seeking to declare various sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as ultra vires to the Constitution as they do not provide for independent judiciary to decide the cases but the members and chairperson to be selected by the Selection Committee headed by the Revenue C Secretary. According to the petitioner, following the case of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India & Others (1997) 3 SCC 261 undermines separation of powers as envisaged by the Constitution.

116Copy pinpoint116. We have endeavoured to give broad picture of the public interest litigation of 1st, llnd and Ill rd phases decided by our courts.

117Copy pinpoint117. We would briefly like to discuss evolution of the public E interest litigation in other judicial systems.

EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTERST LITIGATION IN OTHER JUDICIAL SYSTEMS NAMELY, USA, U.K., AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA.

F AUSTRALIA

118Copy pinpoint118. In Australia also for protecting environment, the Australian court has diluted the principle of 'aggrieved person'.

119Copy pinpoint119. In Australia, Public Interest Litigation has been a G method of protecting the environment. The courts have not given a definition of 'Public Interest Litigation', but in Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 : (1998) 152 ALR 83, the High Court of Australia (apex court) upheld the concept and pointed out the essential requirements. McHugh H J., quoted Stein J., from the lower court:

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 743

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] "In summary I find the litigation to be properly characterised as public interest litigation. The basis of the challenge was arguable, raising serious and significant issues resulting in important interpretation of new provisions relating to the protection of endangered fauna. The application concerned a publicly notorious site amidst continuing controversy. Mr. Oshlack had nothing to gain from the litigation other than the worthy motive of seeking to uphold environmental law and the preservation of endangered fauna."

120Copy pinpoint120. To the court it was important that the petitioner did not have any other motive than the stated one of protecting the environment. The test therefore in Australia seems to be that the petitioner when filing a public interest litigation, should not stand to gain in some way. D U.S.A.

121Copy pinpoint121. The US Supreme Court realized the constitutional obligation of reaching to all segments of society particularly the black Americans of African origin. The courts' craftsmanship E and innovation is reflected in one of the most celebrated path- breaking judgment of the US Supreme Court in Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483, 489-493 (1954). Perhaps, it would accomplish the constitutional obligation and goal. In this case, the courts have carried out their own investigation and in the judgment it is observed that F "Armed with our own investigation" the courts held that all Americans including Americans of African origin can study in all public educational institutions. This was the most significant development in the history of American judiciary. G

122Copy pinpoint122. The US Supreme Court dismissed the traditional rule of Standing in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. William B. Camp 397 U.S. 150 (1970). The court observed that a plaintiff may be granted standing H

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A whenever he/she suffers an "injury in fact" - "economic or otherwise".

123Copy pinpoint123. In another celebrated case Olive B. Barrows v. Leola Jackson 346 U.S. 249 (1953), 73 S.Ct. 1031 the court observed as under:- B "But in the instant case, we are faced with a unique situation in which it is the action of the state court which might result in a denial of constitutional rights and in which it would be difficult if not impossible for the persons whose C rights are asserted to present their grievance before any court. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we believe the reasons which underlie our rule denying standing to raise another's rights, which is only a rule of practice, are outweighed by the need to protect the o fundamental rights which would be denied by permitting the damages action to be maintained."

124Copy pinpoint124. In environment cases, the US Supreme Court has diluted the stance and allowed organizations dedicated to protection of environment to fight cases even though such societies are not directly armed by the action.

125Copy pinpoint125. In United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) 412 US 669 (1973), the court allowed a group of students to challenge the action of the railroad which would have led to environmental loss.

126Copy pinpoint126. In Paul J. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 409 U.S. 205 (1972) the Court held that a landlord's racially discriminatory practices towards non-whites inflicted an injury in fact upon the plaintiffs, two tenants of an apartment complex, by depriving them of the "social benefits of living in an integrated community."

127Copy pinpoint127. Similarly, the Suprem~ Court of the United States has granted standing in certain situi:itions to a plaintiff to challenge H

STATE OF UTTARAl'ilCH-AL v.-BAlWANT SINGH 745 CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

injuries sustained by a third party with whom he/she shares a A "close" relationship.

128Copy pinpoint128. In Thomas E. Singleton v. George J. L. Wulff 428 U.S. 106 (1976), the Court granted standing to two physicians challenging the constitutionality of a state statute limiting 8 abortions. Similarly, in Caplin v. Drysdale 491 U.S. 617, 623- 24 n. 3 (1989), the Court granted standing to an attorney to challenge a drug forfeiture law that would deprive his client of the means to retain counsel.

129Copy pinpoint129. The Supreme Court has also granted organizational C standing. In Robert Warth v. Ira Seldin 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975), the Court declared that "even in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members." This judgment had far reaching consequence. In James B. Hunt v. Washington State Apple D Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977), the Court elaborated the parameters for organizational standing where an organization or association "has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks E to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; (c) neither the claim asserted, nor the relief requested, requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit".

ENGLAND F

130Copy pinpoint130. The use of PIL in England has been comparably limited. The limited development in PIL has occurred through broadening the rules of standing.

Broad Rules of Standing G

131Copy pinpoint131. In Re. Reed, Bowen & Co. (1887) 19 QBD 174 to facilitate vindication of public interest, the English judiciary prescribed broad rules of standing. Under the traditional rule of standing, judicial redress was only available to a 'person H

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 1 S.C.R.

A aggrieved' - one "who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has, been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something." However, the traditional rule no longer governs standing in the B English Courts.

132Copy pinpoint132. One of the most distinguished and respected English Judge Lord Denning initiated the broadening of standing in the English Courts with his suggestion that the "words 'person aggrieved' are of wide import and should not be subjected to C a restrictive interpretation." - Attorney-General of the Gambia v. Pierre Sarr N'Jie (1961) AC 617.

133Copy pinpoint133. The Blackbum Cases broadened the rule of standing in actions seeking remedy through prerogative writs brought by D individuals against public officials for breach of a private right. (e.g., mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari). Under the Blackbum standard, "any person who was adversely affected" by the action of a government official in making a mistaken policy decision was eligible to be granted standing before the E Court for seeking remedy through prerogative writs - Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn [1968) 2 W.L.R. 893 ("Blackburn I").

134Copy pinpoint134. In Blackburn I, the Court of Appeal granted standing to Blackburn to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the Police Commissioner to enforce a betting and gambling statute against gambling clubs.

135Copy pinpoint135. In Blackburn II, the Court of Appeal found no defects in Blackburn's standing to challenge the Government's decision to join a common market. Blackburn v. Attorney-General (1971) 1 W.L.R. 1037). ·

136Copy pinpoint136. In Blackbum///, the Court of Appeal granted standing to Blackburn to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the H Metropolitan Police to enforce laws ~gainst obscene

STATE OF UTIARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 747

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

publications. Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the A Metropolis, Ex parte Blackbum [1973] 0.8. 241.

137Copy pinpoint137. In Blackbum IV, the Court of Appeal granted standing to Blackburn to seek a writ of prohibition directed at the Greater London Council for failing to properly use their 8 censorship powers with regard to pornographic films. Regina v. Greater London Council ex parte. Blackburn [1976] 1 W.L.R. 550.

138Copy pinpoint138. The English judiciary was hesitant in applying this broadened rule of standing to actions seeking remedy through relator claims - Relator claims are remedies brought by the Attorney General to remedy a breach of a public right. (e.g., declaration and injunction). Initially, Lord Denning extended the broadeQed rule of standing in actions seeking, remedy through prerogative writs to actions seeking remedyithrough relator claims. In Attorney General Ex rel McWhirter v. Independent Broadcasting Authority, (1973) Q.B. 629 the Court stipulated that, "in the last resort, if the Attorney-General refuses leave in a proper case, or improperly or unreasonably delays in giving leave, or his machinery works too slowly, then a member of the public who has a sufficient interest can himself apply to the court." This rule was promptly overturned by the House of Lords in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] A.C. 435. In this case, the House of Lords held that in relator claims, the Attorney General holds absolute discretion in deciding whether to grant leave to a case. Thus, the English judiciary did not grant standing to an individual seeking remedy through relator claims.

139Copy pinpoint139. Finally, an amendment to the Rules of the Supreme Court in 1978 through Order 53 overcame the English G judiciary's hesitation in applying a broadened rule of standing to relatot claims. Order 53 applied the broadened rule of standing to both actions seeking remedy through prerogative writs and actions seeking remedy through relator claims. Rule H

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A 3(5) of Order 53 stipulates that the Court shall not grant leave for judicial review "unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the applicant relates." - ORDER 53, RULES OF THE SUPT. CT. (1981). In Inland Revenue Commissioners v. National Federation of Se/f- 8 Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. (1982] A.C. 617, the Court explained that "fairness and justice are tests to be applied" when determining if a party has a sufficient interest.

140Copy pinpoint140. In Regina v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co. (1990) 1 Q.B. 504, the Court C elaborated that "direct financial or legal interest is not required" to find sufficient interest. Thus, under the new rule of standing embodied in Order 53, individuals can challenge actions of public officials if they are found to have "sufficient interest" - a flexible standard. D SOUTH AFRICA

141Copy pinpoint141. The South African Constitution has adopted with a commitment to "transform the society into one in which there E will be human dignity, freedom and equality." - See: Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Nata/, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), p. 5. Thus, improving access to justice falls squarely within the mandate of this Constitution. In furtherance of this objective, the South African legal framework takes a F favorable stance towards PIL by prescribing broad rules of standing and relaxing pleading requirements.

(A) Broad Rules of Standing

142Copy pinpoint142. Section 38 of the Constitution broadly grants standing to approach a competent court for allegations of infringement of a right in the bill of rights to:

"(a) anyone acting in their own interest;

(b) anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 749

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

(c) anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, A a group or class of persons;

(d) anyone acting in the public interest;

(e) an association acting in the interest of its members." 8

143Copy pinpoint143. In expressly permitting class actions and third-party actions, Section 38 prescribes broad rules of standing for constitutional claims. Interpreting the language of Section 38, the Constitutional Court elaborated in Ferreira v. Levin NO & C Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC), p. 241 that a broad approach to standing should be applied to constitutional claims to ensure that constitutional rights are given the full measure of protection to which they are entitled. In the said judgment by a separate concurring judgment, Justice O'Regan suggested that a "wider o net for standing" should be extended to all "litigation of a public character."

(8) Relaxing Formal Requirements of Pleadings

144Copy pinpoint144. The Constitutional Court has been prompt to relax formal pleading requirements in appropriate cases. In S v. Twala (South African Human Rights Commission Intervening), 2000 (1) SA 879, the President of the Court directed that a hand written letter received from a prisoner complaining about his frustration in exercising his right to appeal be treated as an application for leave to appeal.

145Copy pinpoint145. In Xinwa & Others v. Volkswagen of South Africa (PTY) Ltd. 2003 (4) SA 390 (CC), p. 8 the Court cemented the Twala principle that "form must give way to substance" in public interest litigation. The Court explained that "pleadings prepared by lay persons must be construed generously and in the light most favourable to the litigant. Lay litigants should not be held to the same standard of accuracy, skill and precision in the presentation of their case required 1f lawyers. In construing H

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 O] 1 S.C.R.

A such pleadings, regard must be had to the purpose of the pleading as gathered not only from the content of the pleadings but also from the context in which the pleading is prepared."

IMPACT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ON B NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES

146Copy pinpoint146. The development of public interest litigation in India has had an impact on the judicial systems of neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan and other countries. c p,1\KISTAN:

147Copy pinpoint147. By a recent path-breaking historical judgment of the Pakistan Supreme Court at Islamabad dated 31st July, 2009 delivered in public interest litigation bearing Constitution 0 Petition No.9 of 2009 filed by Sindh High Court Bar Association through its Secretary and Constitution Petition No.8 of 2009 filed by Nadeem Ahmed Advocate, both petitions filed against Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad & Others, E the entire superior judiciary which was sacked by the previous political regime has now been restored.

148Copy pinpoint148. Another path breaking judgment delivered very recently on 16th December, 2009 by all the 17 judges of the F Pakistan Supreme Court in Constitution Petition Nos.76 to 80 of 2007 and 59 of 2009 and another Civil Appeal No.1094 of 2009 also has far-reaching implications.

149Copy pinpoint149. In this judgment, the National Reconciliation Ordinance (No.XV) 2007 came under challenge by which G amendments were made in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999. The National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (for short, NAO) was designed to give immunity of the consequences of the offences . H committed by the constitutional authorities and other authorities

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 751

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

in power and (NRO) was.declareq void ab initio being ultra A vires and violative ofc:otistltutional provisions including 4, 8, 25, 62(f), 63(i)(p ), 89, 175 and 227 of the Constitution. This judgment was also delivered largely in public interest.

150Copy pinpoint150. In an important judgment delivered by the Supreme 8 Court of Pakistan in Genera/ Secrerary, West Pakistan Salt Mineral Labour Union (CBA) Khewra, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore reported in 1994 SCMR 2061 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) in Human Right Case No.120 of 1993 on 12th July, 1994 gave significant directions largely based on the judgments of this court.

151Copy pinpoint151. The petitioners in the said petition sought enforcement of the rights of the residents to have clean and unpolluted water. Their apprehension was that in case the miners are allowed to continue their activities, which are extended in the water catchment area, the watercourse, reservoir and the pipelines would get contaminated. According to the court, water has been considered source of life in this world. Without water there can be no life. History bears testimony that due to famine and scarcity of water, civilization have vanished, green lands have turned into deserts and arid goes completely destroying the life not any of human being, but animal life as well. Therefore, water, which is necessary for existence of life, if polluted, or contaminated, will cause serious threat to human existence. F

152: The court gave significant directions including stopping the functioning of factory which created pollution and environmental degradation.

153Copy pinpoint153. Another significant aspect which has been decided G in this case was to widen the definition of the 'aggrieved person'. The court observed that in public interest litigation, procedural trappings and restrictions of being an aggrieved person and other similar technical ou:ections cannot bar the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme .;ourt also observed that H

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A the Court has vast power under Article 183(3) to investigate into question of fact as well independently by recording evidence.

154Copy pinpoint154. In another important case Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLO 1994 Supreme Court 693, a three-Judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice gave significant directions. In the said 8 petition four residents of Street No. 35, F~6/1, Islamabad protested to WAPDA against construction of a grid station in F-6/1, Islamabad. A letter to this effect was written to the Chairman on 15.1.1992 conveying the complaint and apprehensions of tr.e residents of the area in respect of construction of a grid station allegedly located in the green-belt of a residential locality. They pointed out that the electromagnetic field by the presence of the high voltage transmission lines at the grid station would pose a serious health hazard to the residents of the area particularly the children, the infirm and the Dhobi-ghat families that live; the immediate vicinity. The presence of electrical installations and transmission lines would also be highly dangerous to the citizens particularly the children who play outside in the area. It would damage the greenbelt and affect the environment. It was also alleged that it violates the principles of planning in Islamabad where the green belts are considered an essential component of the city for environmental and aesthetic reasons.

155Copy pinpoint155. The Supreme Court observed that where life of citizens is degraded, the quality of life is adversely affected and health hazards created are affecting a large number of people. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may grant relief to the extent of stopping the functioning of such units that create pollution and environmental degradation.

G SRI LANKA:

156Copy pinpoint156. There has been great impact of Public Interest Litigation on other countries. In Bulankulama and six others v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and seven others (Eppawala case), the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka gave

STATE OF UTIARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 753

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

significant directions in public interest litigation. In the said case, 'Mineral Investment Agreement was entered between the Government and the private company for rapid exploitation of rock phosphate reserves at Eppawala in Sri Lanka's agriculture rich North Central Province - High intensity mining operation plus establishment of a processing plant on Trincomalee coast was set up which would produce phosphoric and sulphuric acid. Six residents of the area of whose agricultural lands stood to be affected filed a petition before the court in public interest. It was stated in the petition that the project was not for a public purpose but for the benefit of a private company and would not c bring substantial economic benefit to Sri Lanka. The petitioners claimed imminent infringement of their fundamental rights under various provisions of the Constitution. The court invoked the public trust theory as applied in the United States and in our country in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 D SCC 388. The court upheld the petitioners' fundamental rights. The respondents were restrained from entering into any contract relating to the Eppawala phosphate deposit. The court allowed the petition and the respondents were directed to give costs to the petitioners. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka protected E environmental degradation by giving important directions in this case.

NEPAL:

157Copy pinpoint157. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of Nepal F in Surya Prasad Sharma Dhungle v. Godawari Marble Industries in writ petition No.35 of 1992 passed significant directions. It was alleged in the petition that Godawari Marble Industries have been causing serious environmental degradation to Godawari forest and its surrounding which is rich G in natural grandeur and historical and religious enshrinement are being destroyed by the respondents. In the petition it was mentioned that the illegal activities of the respondent Godawari Marble Indus.tries have caused a huge public losses. H

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

158Copy pinpoint158. The Supreme Court of Nepal gave significant directions to protect degradation of environment and ecology. The court adopted the concept of sustainable development.

159Copy pinpoint159. The Indian courts may have taken some Inspiration 8 from the group or class interest litigation of the United States of America and other countries but the shape of the public interest litigation f!S we see now Is predominantly indigenously developed jurisprudence.

160Copy pinpoint160. The public interest litigation as developed in various facets and various branches is unparalleled. The Indian Courts by its judicial craftsmanship, creativity and urge to provide access to justice to the deprived, discriminated and otherwise vulnerable sections of society have touched almost every aspect of human life while dealing with cases filed in the label of the public interest litigation. The credibility of the superior courts of India has been tremendously enhanced because of soma vital and important directions given by the courts. The courts' contribution In halplng the poorer sections of the society by giving new definition to life and liberty and to protect ecology, e environment and forests are extremely significant. ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:

161Copy pinpoint161. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, F created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. G

162Copy pinpoint162. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and pre1erve this Important jurisdiction In the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure Its abuse on the basis of monetary and non- H monetary directions by the courts.

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BAL.WANT SINGH 7~f> CHAUFAL & ORS. [DAl-VEE:R aHANOARI, J,]

163Copy pinpoint163. In SALCO Employef's' Union (Re~d.) v. Union of A India & Others AIR 2002 SC 360, thl~ Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increpsing 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 @llowed to be used for B 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 c has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in entertaining the public interest litigations.

164Copy pinpoint164. In S. P. Gupta's case (supra), this Court has found that this liberal standard makes it critical to limit standing to individuals "acting bona fide. To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the guise of Pll.. , the Court has excluded two groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First. the Supreme Court has rejected Jwarding standing to "meddlesome interlopers". Second, the Court has denied standing to lnterveners bringing pµblie intere§t litigation for personal gain.

165Copy pinpoint165. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra), the Court withheld standing from the applicant on grounds that the applicant brought the suit motivated by enmity between the parties. Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that accords broad enollgh standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexations petitions.

166Copy pinpoint166. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public Interest litigation petitions by two methods ,.,.. one monetary and second, non,monetary. The first category of cases is that where the court Qn filing frivolous public interest litigation petitions, dismissed the petitions with exemplary costs. In Neetu v. State of Pubjab & Others AIR 2007 SC 758, H

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A the Court concluded that it is necessary to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.

167Copy pinpoint167. In S.P. Anand v. HD. Deve Gowda & Others AIR 8 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. c

168Copy pinpoint168. 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 o devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation." Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

169Copy pinpoint169. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of E Maharashtra & Others (2005) 1 SCC 590, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. Th~ Court found that the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the Court F concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 25,000 by the High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by Advocates. G

170Copy pinpoint170. This Court, in the second category of cases, even passed harsher orders. In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another AIR 1984 SC 309, the Supreme Court observed that, "we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of costs against the two petitioners" for filing a "light-

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 757

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

hearted and indifferent" PIL petition. However, to prevent A "nipping in the bud a well-founded claim on a future occasion," the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the petitioners." In this case, this Court concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate prosecution B proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in this case.

171Copy pinpoint171. In J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu & c Others (1999) 1 SCC 53, this court laid down that public interest litigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of any public property including the political party in power for the reason that interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public interest. D

172Copy pinpoint172. This court has been quite conscious that the forum of this court should not be abused by any one for personal gain or for any oblique motive. E

173Copy pinpoint173. In BALCO (supra), this court held that the jurisdiction is being abused by unscrupulous persons for their personal gain. Therefore, the court must take care that the forum be not abused by any person for personal gain.

174Copy pinpoint174. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra), this court expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of public interest litigation and observed that the public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations. H

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R.

175Copy pinpoint175. In Thaware's case (supra), the Court encouraged the Imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or abetting files B frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public Interest Litigation. This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.

176Copy pinpoint176. In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra C Mishra & Others AIR 2008 SC 913, this Court observed as under:

'It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters -government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 759

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.) busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or A officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public 8 interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never nioves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the c minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our judicial system."

The Court cautioned by observing that:

"Public iriterest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. F )()()()()()()()()(

The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of G the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be H

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 1 S.C.R.

A allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be B liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or c meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect."

177Copy pinpoint177. The malice of frivolous and vexatious petitions did not originate in India. The jurisprudence developed by the Indian judiciary regarding the imposition of exemplary costs upon frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions is consistent with jurisprudence developed in other countries. U.S. Federal Courts E and Canadian Courts have also imposed monetary penalties upon public interest claims regarded as frivolous. The courts also imposed non-monetary penalties upon Advocates for filing frivolous claims. In Everywoman's Health Centre Society v. Bridges 54 B.C.L.R. (2nd Edn.) 294, the British Columbia F Court of Appeal granted special costs against the Appellants for bringing a meritless appeal.

178Copy pinpoint178. U.S. Federal Courts too have imposed monetary penalties against plaintiffs for bringing frivolous public interest G claims. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") permits Courts to apply an "appropriate sanction" on any party for filing frivolous claims. Federal Courts have relied on this rule to impose monetary penalties upon frivolous public interest claims. For example, in Harris v. Marsh 679 F.Supp. H 1204 (E.D.N.C. 1987), the District Court for the Eastern District

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 761

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

of North Carolina imposed a monetary sancnon upon two civil rights plaintiffs for bringing a frivolous, vexatious, and meritless employment discrimination claim. The Court explained that "the increasingly crowded dockets of the federal courts cannot accept or tolerate the heavy burden posed by factually baseless and claims that drain judicial resources." As a deterrent against such wasteful claims, the Court levied a cost of $83,913.62 upon two individual civil rights plaintiffs and their legal counsel for abusing the judicial process. Case law in Canadian Courts and U.S. Federal Courts exhibits that the imposition of monetary penalties upon frivolous public interest claims is not unique to c Indian jurisprudence.

179Copy pinpoint179. Additionally, U.S. Federal Courts have imposed non- monetary penalties upon Attorneys for bringing frivolous claims. Federal rules and case law leave the door open for such non- monetary penalties to be applied equally in private claims and D public interest claims. Rule 11 of the FRCP additionally permits Courts to apply an "appropriate sanction" on Attorneys for filing frivolous claims on behalf of their clients. U.S. Federal Courts have imposed non-monetary sanctions upon Attorneys for bringing frivolous claims under Rule 11. E

180Copy pinpoint180. In Frye v. Pena 199 F.3d 1332 (Table), 1999 WL 974170, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's order to disbar an Attorney for having "brought and pressed frivolous claims, made personal attacks on various government officials in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, and demonstrated a lack of candor to, and contempt for, the court." This judicial stance endorses the ethical obligation embodied in Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"): "a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous." Together, the FRCP, U.S. federal case law, and the MRPC endorse the imposition of non-monetary penalties upon attorneys for bringing frivolous private claims or public interest claims.

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C R.

181Copy pinpoint181. In Bar Council of Maharashtra (supra) this court was apprehensive that by widening the legal standing there may be flood of litigation but loosening the definition is also essential in the larger public interest. To arrest the mischief is the obligation and tribute to the judicial system. B

182Copy pinpoint182. In SP Gupta (supra) the court cautioned that important jurisdiction of public interest litigation may be confined to legal wrongs and legal injuries for a group of people or class of persons. It should not be used for individual wrongs because individuals can always seek redress from legal aid organizations. This is a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law.

183Copy pinpoint183. In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti (supra) this court again emphasized that Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental rights of the citizens. The superior courts have to ensure that this weapon under Article 32 should not be misused or abused by any individual or organization.

184Copy pinpoint184. 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 demand for great~r judicial responsibility. The PIL has given new hope of justice-starved millions of people of this country. The court must encourage genuine PIL and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.

185Copy pinpoint185. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Another v. C.K. Rajan & Others (2003) 7 SCC 546, it was reiterated that the court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process, the court would be justified in insisting on furnishing of security before granting injunction in appropriate cases. The courts may impose heavy costs to ensure that judicial process is not misused.

186Copy pinpoint186. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware (supra) this court again H

STATE OF UTIARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 763

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

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 perso'1 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.

187Copy pinpoint187. In Neetu (supra) this court observed that under the guise of redressing a public grievance the public interest litigation should not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature.

188Copy pinpoint188. In Mis. Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this court observed that the judges who exercise the jurisdiction should be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of PIL, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/o publicity-seeking is not lurking. The court should ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the court.

189Copy pinpoint189. When we revert to the facts of the present then the conclusion is obvious that this case is a classic case of the abuse of the process of the court. In the present case a practicing lawyer has deliberately abused the process of the court. In that process, he has· made a serious attempt to demean an important constitutional office. The petitioner o'ught to have known that the controversy which he has been raising in the petition stands concluded half a century ago and by a Division Bench judgment of Nagpur High Court in the case of Karkare (supra) the said case was approved by a Constitution Bench of this court. The controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra. It is unfortunate that even after such a clear enunciation of the legal position, a large number of similar petitions have been filed from time to time in various High Courts. The petitioner ought to have refrained from filing such a frivolous petition. H

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 OJ 1 S.C.R.

190Copy pinpoint190. A degree of precision and purity in presentation is a sine qua non for a petition filed by a member of the Bar under the label of public interest litigation. It is expected from a member of the Bar to at least carry out the basic research whether the point raised by him is res integra or not. The lawyer who files such a petition cannot plead ignorance.

191Copy pinpoint191. We would like to make it clear that we are not saying that the petitioner cannot ask the court to review its own judgment because of flaws and lacunae, but that should have been a bona fide presentation with listing of all relevant cases in a chronological order and that a brief description of what judicial opinion has been and cogent and clear request why where should be re-consideration of the existing law. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not done this exercise. The petition which has been filed in the High Court is a clear abuse · D of the process of law and we have no doubt that the petition has been filed for extraneous considerations. The petition also has the potentiality of demeaning a very important constitutional office. Such petition deserves to be discarded and discouraged so that no one in future would attempt to file a E similar petition.

192Copy pinpoint192. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeals filed by the State and quash the proceedings of the Civil Miscellaneous Writ F Petition No. 689 (M/B) of 2001 filed in the Uttaranchal High Court. We further direct that the respondents (who were the petitioners before the High Court) to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lakh) in the name of Registrar General of the High court of Uttarakhand. The costs to be paid by the G respondents within two months. If the costs is not deposited within two months, the same would be recovered as the arrears of the Land Revenue.

193Copy pinpoint193. We request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Uttrakhand High Court to create a fund in the name of Uttarakhand High H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 765

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J]

Court Lawyers Welfare Fund if not already in existence. The A fund could be utilized for providing necessary help to deserving young lawyers by the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand in consultation with the President of the Bar.

194Copy pinpoint194. We must abundantly make it clear that we are not 8 discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped C in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the courts to encourage genuine bona fide PIL petitions and pass directions and orders in the public interest which are in consonance with the Constitution and the Laws. D

195Copy pinpoint195. The Public Interest Litigation, which has been in existence in our country for more than four decades, has a glorious record. This Court and the High Courts by their judicial creativity and craftsmanship have passed a number of directions in the larger public interest in consonance with the . E inherent spirits of the Constitution. The conditions of marginalized and vulnerable section of society have significantly improved on ac~ount of courts directions in the P.l.L.

196Copy pinpoint196. In our considered view, now it has become F imperative to streamline the P.l.L.

197Copy pinpoint197. We have carefully considered the facts of the present case. We have also examined the law declared by this court and other courts in a number of judgments. G

198Copy pinpoint198. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:-

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. H

766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R

A (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with B oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the c High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.l.L.

D (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the E petition.

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. F (7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive G or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs H

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL v. BALWANT SINGH 767

CHAUFAL & ORS. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

or by adopting similar novel methods to curb A frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

199Copy pinpoint199. Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts within one week. B

200Copy pinpoint200. These appeals are listed on 03.05.2010 to ensure compliance of our order.

R.P. Appeals adjourned.