Read Time: 05 minutes

In an appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the pre-admission cost for a PIL as ordered by the Bombay High court stating that a balance should be struck so as to preclude the possibility of a denial of access to justice.

The Apex Court reduced the cost which was ordered to be deposit of 1% of the project cost prior to admission of the concerned PIL and held that it would be rather harsh and would sub-serve the ends of justice.  

The Division Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah reduced cost from Rs 3.9 crore to Rs 10 lakh.

Keeping in mind the Rule 7A of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010 which was invoked by the High Court while directing the cost, the Apex Court observed,

“The purpose of incorporating such a provision is to ensure that public projects, in particular, are not dislocated by the institution of motivated PILs. While bearing Rule 7A in mind, it is equally necessary to ensure that a balance is struck so as to preclude the possibility of a denial of access to justice. Undoubtedly, the order of the High Court was intended to sub-serve the interest of ensuring that a public project is not unduly delayed by litigation.”

Allowing the PIL to be heard as being restored back to the High Court, the top Court ordered,

“Hence, we direct that since the appellant has complied with the order dated 19 July 2021 by depositing an amount of Rs 10 lakhs before the Registry of the High Court, the PIL can be heard on that basis instead and in substitution of the impugned direction which was issued by the High Court.”

Matter In Brief

Arvind Tukaram Shinde, the petitioner and a five-time corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation, instituted a PIL in Bombay High Court alleging gross and patent financial irregularity in the tender process relating to a sewage treatment plan, valued at approximately Rs 390 crore.

The Bombay High Court, invoking section 7A of the above-said rules, directed the petitioner to 1% of the estimated project cost to demonstrate his bona fides in moving the PIL.

Aggrieved by the order, the appellant moved the Supreme Court and submitted that the cost would place an unbearable burden on him and prevent him from pursuing the challenge in Court.

(Case Title- Arvind Tukaram Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra and Others)