The Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that PIL is
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that PIL is not a pill for every ill and should not be entertained if the bona fides of the petitioners are in doubt.
Nikhil Padha, Human Rights Activist v. Chairman Human Rights Commission
A Bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mittal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal iterated that PIL should not be used as a weapon to garner political mileage or scandalise the court.
“The Apex Court in one of the cases has clearly ruled that when a political rival complains against the other political party or person it would not be a bonafide litigation at the behest of the opponent and that such petitions in public interest ought not to be entertained,” the court said.
A PIL should not be allowed to be filed to abuse the process of law or if the pleadings are vexatious, misconceived, unfounded and untenable.
“It is worth noting in context with the Public Interest Litigation that PIL is not a Pill for every ill and it should not be entertained if the bona fides of the persons are in doubt,” the order said.
In this case, a PIL was filed by a 25-year-old law graduate seeking reopening of Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Women Commission, Accountability Commission and State Information Commission which were closed on account of the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution of India.
The court observed that the petitioner is not really interested in the establishment of the above fora but the real intent was to attack the government over the deletion of the special status granted to the J&K.
Therefore the PIL was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000.
