State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal
Supreme Court of India, 18 January 2010, 2 judges
A PIL challenging the appointment of an Advocate General over 62 was an abuse of process, as the question was long settled. The Court traced three phases of PIL and issued directions to curb frivolous PILs.
Facts
A public interest petition, filed in the Uttaranchal High Court by petitioners including a practising lawyer, challenged the appointment of L. P. Nathani as Advocate General, on the ground that under Article 165 read with Article 217 he was ineligible because he had crossed 62 years. The High Court entertained the petition and directed the State Government to decide the issue within 15 days. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's orders. The respondents did not appear in the Supreme Court despite notice.
Questions before the Court
- Whether a person who has attained 62 years can be appointed Advocate General under Article 165.
- Whether the public interest petition was an abuse of the process of the court.
- What safeguards courts should adopt against misuse of public interest litigation.
What the Court held
- Article 165 requires the Advocate General to be qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge, and those qualifications are in Article 217(2). The age in Article 217(1) governs the Judge's tenure, not qualification. The question was settled in Karkare, approved by a Constitution Bench in 1962, so an Advocate General can be appointed after 62.
- Raising a settled question again in a PIL wasted the court's time and demeaned a constitutional office. The petition was an abuse of process; the appeals were allowed, the writ proceedings quashed, and the petitioners ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as costs.
- Public interest litigation in India has passed through three phases: protection of fundamental rights of marginalised groups, protection of ecology and environment, and probity and transparency in governance.
- Courts must encourage genuine PIL and curb misuse. They should verify the petitioner's credentials and the correctness of the petition, entertain it only where substantial public interest and genuine public injury are involved without private motive, and impose exemplary costs on busybodies. High Courts were asked to frame PIL rules within three months.
Why it matters
The judgment surveys the development of public interest litigation in India, dividing it into three phases, and lays down eight directions for courts to encourage genuine PIL and discourage petitions filed for extraneous reasons, including verification of credentials and exemplary costs. It also asks High Courts to frame rules for PIL.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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.”
“(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (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.”
“We must abundantly make it clear that we are not discouraging the public interest litigation in any manner, what we are trying to curb is its misuse and abuse. According to us, this is a very important branch and, in a large number of PIL petitions, significant directions have been given by the courts for improving ecology and environment, and directions helped in preservation of forests, wildlife, marine life etc. etc.”
“When the controversy is no longer res-integra and the same controversy is raised repeatedly, then it not only wastes the precious time of the Court and prevent the Court from deciding other deserving cases, but also has the immense potentiality of demeaning a very important constitutional office and person who has been appointed to that office.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2002
- Decided
- 18 January 2010
- Bench
- Dalveer Bhandari, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by Dalveer Bhandari J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.