Skip to main content

Public Interest Litigations? or Public Interests dialogues !


Taking clue from observations so made by the Hon.Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Bahdhua Mukti Morcha, "…matters of larger public interest that come before Supreme Court and High Courts really speaking are not adversary in nature", i take leave to state few words.

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.
Labels:

Comments

Rishi said…
Good point Sandeep, especially the point about not having a confrontational nature. But again it is a choice that the litigant makes.

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
April 30, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Recall Jurisdiction of the Courts

What is Recall of Orders of the Court ? But first….what is expected from the Orders of the Court – a)       While giving due consideration to the submissions and evidences on record of the rival parties, to record a reasoned finding with respect to disputed question of fact or of law; b)       Employing cogent reasons about the conclusion reached in the order / judgment. c)       Passing of orders in accordance with law. d)      Principles of natural justice are reasonably observed in the judicial proceeding. And when the Orders suffers from any of the vices, it is challenged by way of Review, Appeal or in Revision, alleging the impugned Order, being infected with either of the grounds, i.e. – a)       That there is Error apparent on the face of the Record; b)       That there is Perversity in the impugned Order; c)...
8 comments
Read more

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai Capital Value Property Tax Judgment: A Rocket Science by Social Scientists; A Brief Analysis;

The subject of taxation is a “Rocket Science”. The constitution of Nine Judges Bench in the Mafatlal Industries Case, Reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536, running into more than 500 pages; the extremely contested Vodafone litigation; and the present Judgment of Bombay High Court running into 310 Pages, at least furnishes some justification to this statement of Rocket Science. There are umpteen Judgments, some of which are relied herein also (Para 147), that whilst dealing with challenge to Taxation laws, greater latitude is shown by Constitutional Courts, only for the reason that Taxation / Economic Legislation, by their very nature, are very complex. And hold on, the Regime of Property Tax based on Capital Value of the Property, was brought in force, on the recommendations of Tata Institute of “Social Sciences”. (Para 33 of the Judgment) Did these Social Scientist, nevertheless very respectable, would appreciate an Inch of what was discussed in 310 Pages of Judgment, even assuming t...
4 comments
Read more