Read Time: 16 minutes

The Principle of Rule of Law, which forms an integral part of any democratic social structure fell prey to a tardy and extensive procedure resulting in an overwhelming toll on the underprivileged and marginalized communities of the society,  until the emergence of the concept of Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”).

Initially brought about by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 through the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v.  Abdul Thai (AIR 1976 SC 1455) in the form of liberalising the rule of locus standi and later recognised as “Public Interest Litigation” in SP Gupta and others v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) , the term “Public Interest” signifies a larger interest of the masses and prosperity of the citizen's along with the word ‘litigation’ which denotes a formal court procedure to seek remedial measures and pursuance of rights.

The aim to introduce this concept as noted by Justice PN Bhagwati in 1982 was to consider it as ‘a strategic arm of the legal aid movement which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation.'

However the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to approach the Court by way of a PIL has contributed significantly to the clogging of Court with pending subjects as a frustrating frequency of adjournments. India has been experiencing docket explosion and the problem of huge arrears of pending cases for the past seventy years and the institution of frivolous PIL’s has not only crippled Judiciary’s efficient working but has also adversely affected the citizen’s right to timely delivery of justice. 

As per the data presented by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, the number of cases pending in all the 25 High Court’s across the country is 58 lakhs.

In addition to this, as per the data from National Judicial Grid, the total number of cases that are pending particularly at Principal Bench (Original Side), Bombay High Court is 92,016 out of which 10, 294 are writ petitions and at Principal Bench (Appellate Side), Bombay High Court is 1,96,848 out of which 67,076 are writ petitions. The filing of frivolous and atrocious petitions is one of the major factors that adds to the burden of Judiciary and pendency of cases. 

One such writ petition that along with adding to the pendency of cases in Bombay High Court also resulted in wastage of precious judicial time was a plea filed by Datta Srirang Mane seeking Z + security of CEO of Serum Institute Adar Poonawala from State Government of Maharashtra on May 5, 2021.

The plea was listed for hearing 4 times on May 27, 2021, June 1, 2021, June 10, 2021 and June 11, 2021. 

The plea was disposed of by the bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NJ Jamdar on June 11, 2021 after receipt of precipe dated June 10, 2021 by Advocate Hitesh Jain, Parinam Law Associates, representing Mr Adar Poonawalla wherein a voluntary statement was made that, 

“We propose to make a statement that our client has not made any requests for Z plus security and does not endorse any demands for z plus security made on this behalf or for him by anyone”

An Insight Of The Plea Filed By Datta Srirang Mane Seeking Z+ Security For Adar Poonawala 

In an interview to a London newspaper on May 2, 2021, Poonawalla complained of receiving threats from politicians and "powerful men" demanding quick delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine that his firm has been producing. He had also complained of being "vilified and blamed", and hinted at starting a new vaccine production unit in the United Kingdom. 

Thereafter, keeping into consideration the threats made to Poonawalla as per media reports, a plea was filed by Datta Srirang Mane through Advocate Pradeep Havnur on May 5, 2021 which was registered on May 25, 2021 in the Bombay High Court seeking Z plus security for Adar Poonawala and his family and for protection of his assets. 

The plea also requested the court to give order to Maharashtra government and Pune Police Commissioner to file an FIR in the matter based on the complaint submitted by the petitioner. 

Orders Passed By Bombay High Courts During The Course Of Hearings 

The court passed various orders during the course of four hearings that took place before disposing of the matter. 

On May 27, 2021 vacation bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NR Borkar at the request of Dr FR Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor had adjourned the matter for June 1, 2021.

On June 1, 2021 vacation bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NR Borkar had recorded the submissions made by Mr Deepak Thakre, learned Public Prosecutor’s that the state government had provided ‘Y’ category security consisting of C.R.P.F. personnel to Mr. Aadar Poonawalla and in addition, two State police personnel had also been detailed for the security of Mr. Poonawalla. The court also granted time to Mr Thakre to take instructions as regards to the enhanced security cover which may be required to be provided to Mr. Adar Poonawalla.

On June 10, 2021 the bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NJ Jamdar on account of paucity of time could not take up the balance daily board and therefore adjourned the matter to June 11, 2021. 

On June 11, 2021 the bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NJ Jamdar based on Mr Deepak Thakre, learned Public Prosecutor’s statement that the State of Maharashtra would provide adequate level of security to Mr Poonawalla as and when he would land in India and depending upon his desire disposed of the plea. The Court also said that, “We are of the view that the petition, which is primarily based on news reports, does not deserve to be entertained any further.”

The Last Word

The tool of PIL which originally aimed at upholding the principles of Rule of Law as propounded by British Philosopher AV Dicey has become a serious menace to the administration of justice. Filing of frivolous and groundless petitions by opportunistic people who seek to use this best cause for private profit, political mileage or other oblique intentions add to the huge backlog of cases in the courts across India including the Supreme Court.

The question also remains as to why the Bombay High Court did not seek out an explanation from Poonawalla, viz. grant of security and conducted 4 hearings to finally dispose off the case. This could have undoubtedly saved precious judicial time. It is relevant to note that the statement on by Poonawalla was made voluntary to the Bombay High Court on behalf of lawyers representing him.

Recently, to discharge their daily board, the Bombay High Court vacation bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice SP Tavade of Bombay High Court on May 19, 2021 and May 21, 2021 patiently sat from 10:30 AM till 12:00 AM.

At another instance in 2018, Justice SJ Kathawalla had held the court till 3:30 AM to hear the pending matters before summer vacations. Needless to say, while the Court does overstretch itself to dispose of cases, there is a need to assess cases from a logical point of view - at least wrap up those petitions which can be easily disposed off in the first instance of listing itself.

During these difficult times when the Courts irrespective of functioning through virtual mode are trying their best to reduce the backlog of cases, litigants by filing atrocious petitions are adding to their plight. 

The Court’s across the country including Supreme Court however with an intent to protect the erosion of sanctity of judicial process have been dealing with these “Public Spirited Citizens” sternly by imposing exemplary costs to give a message that, “A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow”.