The court made the observation while rejecting a batch of PILs that sought an independent probe into Special CBI judge BH Loya's death.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been brazenly misused by people with political agenda and they pose a grave danger to the entire judicial process, the Supreme Court said on Thursday. The court made the observation while rejecting a batch of PILs that sought an independent probe into Special CBI judge BH Loya's death.
"It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in public interest that are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation," the court said.
"Frivolous or motivated petitions, detract the time and attention that courts must devote to genuine causes," said Justice DY Chandrachud, who authored the judgment.
"...this jurisdiction (of PILs) has been brazenly misused by persons with personal agenda," said Justice Chandrachud in his 114-page judgment.
The court said such petitions pose a grave danger to the credibility of the judicial process. "This will happen when the agency of the court is utilised to settle extra-judicial scores."
The court said PILs have been used to seek publicity, instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of public interest.
"A carefully orchestrated attempt has been made during the course of these hearings to create evidence to cast doubt on the circumstances leading to the death of Judge Loya," the bench noted against advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was one of the intervenors.
The Bench questioned Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave's motives when he wished to cross-examine certain witnesses associated with the case. The court rejected Dave's plea, observing that "By casting unfounded aspersions on the judicial officers, who had accompanied Judge Loya, the petitioners have revealed the real motive of these proceedings which is to bring the judiciary into disrepute on the basis of scurrilous allegations."
However, the court stopped short of issuing a notice of criminal contempt against the petitioners.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}