Public interest litigation (“PIL”) is filed before the court of law not by the aggrieved party but by a private party or by the court itself. PILs aim to promote and safeguard public interest by ensuring that the violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are socially or economically disadvantaged, do not go unredressed. These have also become a potent tool for enforcing the legal obligation of the executive and the legislature. These also help in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife etc.
In the recent time, Indian Courts have shown concern about misuse of PILs, which have flooded the already overburdened Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”). SC has held that the jurisdiction of PILs is being blatantly abused by filing such PILs with oblique motives or to settle personal scores. (Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, (2018) 6 SCC 72}
In real estate sector, the usual woes of ordinary citizens include, arbitrary one-sided contracts made by builders, delay the handover of the projects, in some allotments by the governmental agencies it is alleged that the process is not fair and at times infrastructure projects lead to land acquisitions, without adequate compensation. While all such grievances have appropriate forum for redressal but due to inherent delays in the Indian legal system, people (and at times some lawyers wanting to earn quick fame), resort to the method of PIL, ignoring the alternate remedies available.
Such misuse of PILs has had an adverse impact on the real estate sector by stalling or delaying projects which are already prone to inadvertent delays due to numerous factors.
In the recent past, SC has devised strategies to ensure that PILs are not misused, by measures such as: (i) limiting the standing in PIL to individuals “acting bonafide”; (ii) imposed “exemplary costs” as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations; (iii) instructed High Courts to be more selective in entertaining PILs; and (iv) issued directions to scrutinise the merit of PILs. (State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402)
Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Rise Foundation Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Ors. (New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi And Ors: (W.P.(C) 11285/2022) MANU/DEOR/96336/2022) has held that the attempt on the part of the petitioner to file a PIL against a developmental project is nothing but an “attempt to blackmail others and it is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens.”
Further, the Apex Court in the case of Sarthi Seva Sangh & Anr Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Sarthi Seva Sangh & Anr Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation (PIL No.43 of 2022) MANU/MH/3481/2022) has upheld the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while observing that “PILs could become an instrument of blackmail when it is an issue of an infrastructure project”.
