The very word "Litigation" in matters of large Public interest creates a climate of conflict between the Govt/agency and the Petitioner, whose interests and objectives in fact are common.
Is not it is desirable that................
critical matters, at least, relating to human development say-
housing for all,
Sanitation,
Clean drinking water,
Security of the People,
administration of Justice,
matters, which are of no dispute, in the sense that even the Govts are not averse to these things, however they may have some constraints of some nature....
................should be resolved with combined dialogue with the Petitioners, the Govt and the Judiciary. The modalities may have to be shaped for this.
What I am trying to merely say that, how matters which are not adversary in nature, matters which even the Govts are not averse to(rather cannot be against to), can be decided in conventional litigation/confrontational manner.
In PILs...the Petitioner moves to Court in larger Public Interest. The Govt is for the peoples' interest, at least in theory. Then where is the element of conflict of interest, a basic prerequisite for adverserial form of litigation.
It is flawed approach, per se.
Also, it is seen that while the Petitioners make allegation against Govt/agencies religiously and then the Courts love to pull the Govt/agencies again religiously. The issue does give little solace to the Petitioner and food script for hungry media, but the case doesnt really move.
I have realized, partnering with the Govt is key to progress. However, the Govt must be taken to Court but not in confrontational mood but with an attitude of meaningful dialogue. I strongly feel allegation of any nature should be avoided.
In PILs, as they say, unlike conventional adversarial litigations, the Litigants do not gaze at each other but they look together in same direction.
Sandeep Jalan,
Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.
Law
Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Thank you.
Comments
There is enormous scope to be friendly and cordial with the government while driving your point very hard in a PIL. But a lot of litigants think that they have to necessarily be aggressive and rude to the government to make it work.
Also courts are places where we go after discussion has failed and there is a need to litigate.
Discussion is general in nature and happens everywhere including in a litigation. Having something like a PID might increase the load on our courts with people choosing to discuss at the platform of the court rather than other fora.
My thoughts,
Rishi