Advocate Faces Supreme Court's Wrath Over Multiple Frivolous PIL Filings
In an unusual courtroom episode on Monday, advocate Sachin Gupta created a dubious record by arguing five public interest litigations (PILs) consecutively before the Supreme Court, only to face severe judicial reprimand and narrowly escape exemplary costs. The petitions spanned an eclectic range of issues, from linguistic classifications to dietary controversies, ultimately drawing the bench's ire for what they deemed frivolous litigation aimed at garnering publicity.
Questionable Petitions Meet Judicial Scrutiny
Appearing as petitioner-in-person, Gupta commenced with a plea seeking government directions to employ technology in eliminating harmful chemicals from liquor and tobacco products. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded with skepticism, questioning the petition's premise. "No liquor or tobacco product can be sold without health warning. If after reading the warning people are buying, what is your problem? You want shop owners to provide them with a medical prescription?" remarked the bench before dismissing the petition as frivolous.
Linguistic and Dietary Controversies Take Center Stage
The subsequent petition challenged the October 2024 conferment of classical language status to Pali, with Gupta arguing that since Prakrit is the original language from which Pali evolved as a dialect, granting classical status to Pali was redundant given Prakrit's existing recognition. However, it was the third PIL that provoked the court's sharpest reaction. This petition sought the constitution of a committee to determine the 'tamasic' (impure) characteristics of garlic, citing it had become a contentious issue within Jain families.
Bench Decries Publicity-Seeking Litigation
The Chief Justice delivered a stern rebuke, stating, "All these PILs are filed to garner publicity in social media and newspapers. Leniency shown by us to such petitioners has made them open shops for PILs. If you were not an advocate, we would have imposed costs on you for filing such frivolous pleas. Concentrate on your profession and do not fall for cheap publicity." The bench dismissed all of Gupta's petitions, highlighting concerns about the misuse of judicial mechanisms for personal visibility.
Broader Pattern of Young Advocates Seeking Fame Through PILs
Later in the day, another PIL filed by a different lawyer seeking pan-India directions to civic bodies regarding safety precautions while digging trenches or pits met with similar disapproval. The CJI observed, "With just one- or two-years practice, young advocates want to become famous by filing PILs," before dismissing this plea as well. This comment underscores a growing judicial concern about inexperienced lawyers utilizing PILs as shortcuts to professional recognition rather than addressing genuine public interest matters.
The incident has sparked discussions within legal circles about the appropriate boundaries for PIL filings and the need for stricter scrutiny to prevent the dilution of this important legal instrument. Legal experts note that while PILs serve as a vital tool for social justice, their misuse for publicity or trivial matters risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary and clogging court dockets with non-essential litigation.
