State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (Supreme Court, 2010) — the three phases of public interest litigation and the directions against its abuse

It is a leading authority on public interest litigation and the source of the directions every High Court now applies. It pairs with S.P. Gupta: that case opened the door, this one guards it.

The appointment of L.P. Nathani as Advocate General of Uttaranchal was challenged before the High Court in a public interest petition on the ground that, being over sixty-two, he could not hold an office whose holder must be qualified to be a High Court judge under Article 165 read with Article 217. The High Court passed orders on the petition; the State appealed to a Bench of Bhandari and Mukundakam Sharma JJ., which decided the appeals on 18 January 2010 and took the occasion to review the law.

The three phases. "We deem it appropriate to broadly divide the public interest litigation in three phases. Phase-I: It deals with cases of this Court where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach this court or the High Courts. Phase-II: It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments etc. etc. Phase-III: It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance."

Standing. The Court traced the relaxation of "person aggrieved" from Jasbhai Motibhai Desai through S.P. Gupta, and the acceptance of letters as petitions in the cases of the first phase.

The directions. "In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative to issue the following directions:- (1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives." High Courts without rules were to frame them within three months. "(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L. (4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL." The court should be "fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved" before entertaining a petition; should give priority to petitions where larger public interest is involved; should ensure that the petition is aimed at redress of genuine public harm and that "there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation"; and "(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations."

Public interest litigation has moved from protecting the poor and the imprisoned, to protecting the environment, to enforcing probity in governance. It remains a legitimate use of Articles 32 and 226 for a bona fide petitioner raising a substantial public interest, but courts must verify the petitioner's credentials and the petition's contents, screen out private and oblique motives, and punish busybodies with exemplary costs.