Court cracks down on abuse of public interest litigation

In State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, a piece of public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the age-related conditions on the appointment of high court judges also apply to state advocates general.

The court reiterated its established position on the question – that not all the provisions relating to a high court judge are applicable to advocates general, who are appointed by state governers and are permitted to hold office beyond the age of 62. The court also lamented that even though this question was settled by a judgment 58 years ago and subsequently approved by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 1962, the issue has been raised repeatedly in various high courts since then. The court cautioned that such reiterations not only waste precious court time but have the potential to demean an important constitutional office and the individuals appointed to it.

The court maintained that the filing of the case this was clearly an abuse of the process of court in the name of PIL, and held that in order to curb the damaging tendency for such extraneous cases to be filed it was necessary for them to be screened out and excluded from consideration by courts in the future.

The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.