National
Filing public interest litigation? Court may impose fines if it doesn’t qualify as one
Supreme Court orders authorities not to register petitions driven by whims and with guided, personal or political interests, as such things ‘waste’ the judiciary’s time.Binod Ghimire
The Supreme Court has decided to fine those who file petitions in the name of public interest litigations in a whimsical manner or guided by personal interests in the issues that are devoid of genuine public concerns.
Terming such petitions “political interest litigations,” “private interest litigations,” or “profitable interest litigations”, the court has said such cases waste the important time of the judiciary.
Issuing the full text of the verdict issued on Friday in a petition filed by advocate Ganesh Regmi, the Constitutional Bench led by acting Chief Justice Deepak Kumar Karki said: “If such petitions are filed, the court can issue rulings to fine such petitioners and ban him or her from filing public interest litigations.”
Public interest litigations are usually filed seeking the judiciary’s intervention for the protection of larger public interest.
The bench on March 13 had quashed the petition by Regmi.
On August 27, Chief Justice Cholendra Sumsher Rana decided to recuse himself from the Constitutional Bench during the hearing of the petitions challenging appointments to the constitutional commissions, which were made after
revising the Constitutional Council (Function, Duty, Power and Procedure) Act-2010.
He made the announcement after questions were raised about his presence on the bench, as petitioners said that would amount to a conflict of interest.
The bench led by Karki, as a senior-most justice, on September 3 was scheduled to hear the petitions. However, on August 29, Regmi filed the petition at the Supreme Court, claiming that the bench cannot conduct the hearing in the absence of the chief justice.
Conducting a preliminary hearing in the petition, the Justice Hari Phuyal-led bench on September 3 issued an interim order in Regmi’s petition, barring the hearing in the petitions challenging constitutional appointments until the final verdict.
“Since it is necessary to determine whether the chief justice, who is a member of the Constitutional Council as per Article 284 of constitution, should be on the bench or not, an interim order has been issued not to hear those petitions [against constitutional appointments] until the issue is settled,” Phuyal observed.
However, the Karki-led bench has quashed Regmi’s petition, saying recusal is a right of an individual justice, and the senior most justice, in the capacity of the acting chief justice, can lead the bench.
The full text says the petitioner has no authority to question the right of recusal. It says the court enjoys the prerogative to resolve the managerial issues and it was competent and independent enough to manage the hearing process.
“The petitioner raised the issues which are against the judicial principle and practice,” reads the verdict. “This petition was not filed with good intentions and in good faith.”
The ruling by Phuyal delayed the hearing on at least five petitions challenging the ordinance to revise the Act and appoint 52 chairpersons and members to a dozen of constitutional commissions without parliamentary hearing.
The bench took up the petitions related to constitutional appointments only after the suspension of Rana on February 13 when 98 lawmakers of the three ruling parties registered an impeachment motion against him in Parliament.
The hearing on the petitions is likely next week.
Legal and constitutional experts say the Supreme Court ruling is crucial to discourage the practice of wasting its precious time by filing petitions that don’t qualify as public interest litigations.
Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC, who had argued against the petition by Regmi during the hearing, says the Constitutional Bench’s decision is important.
“This is a very important decision from the Constitutional Bench. The practice of filing petitions whimsically and for personal interests must be stopped,” he told the Post. “I had demanded a verdict with the provisions of penalty in such cases during the hearing.”
Officials at the court say the verdict asks them to conduct proper screening of the petitions before they are registered.
“The verdict sets a precedent to restrict the filing of petitions that don’t qualify as public interest litigations,” Bimal Poudel, spokesperson for the Supreme Court, told the Post. The verdict directs the chief register at the court to ask the staff to study and take the verdict in notice and implement it.
Legal experts cited the practice in several countries of fines imposed by the courts for filing petitions that don’t qualify as public interest litigations.
Indian actor Juhi Chawla last year filed a plea at the Delhi High saying the 5G technology would do harm to the living beings. She sought an order to the authorities to guarantee the public at large how the 5G technology is safe for humans, animals and every living organism, flora and fauna. However, the court on June 4, 2021 said it was a “defective” lawsuit that was filed for “publicity”. She was also fined INR2 million.
“Such a verdict by our Supreme Court was very necessary to stop petitions that are filed in bad faith or with ulterior motives,” senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, chairperson of the Constitutional Lawyers’ Forum, told the Post. “This ensures only genuine petitions and public interest litigations are registered at the Supreme Court.”