Central Government Wants PIL System Scrapped, CJI Says Courts Already Cautious

New Delhi: The Central Government has raised a demand with the Supreme Court to abolish the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) system. The issue came to the fore when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, during the hearing before the Constitution Bench, argued that at present the PIL system is being misused on a large scale and its basic requirement has now largely been lost.

Did the government talk about removing the PIL system completely?

The government contends that the initial purpose of PIL has undergone a significant transformation. This system was for those who couldn't go to court, but now it's more accessible. In such a situation, the need to file a petition through a third party is no longer the same as before.

Was abuse cited as the biggest reason?

The Solicitor General said many of the PILs filed these days are “motivated”. According to him, in many cases there are real interests hidden behind the petitions and they are filed under some agenda. For this reason, there was a need to reconsider this system.

Have circumstances and access to justice changed?

The government also argued that there have been major changes in the justice system in the last few decades. Now there exist institutions like National and District Legal Services Authorities, which provide free legal aid to the needy. Furthermore, facilities like e-filing have made access to the court easier.

Did the Supreme Court agree with the government?

Chief Justice Surya Kant, reacting to this issue, said that the courts have already become very cautious regarding PIL. He said that now notices are issued only on those petitions that have solid grounds.

Did the court entirely agree or take a balanced approach?

The CJI indicated that the court is already taking precautions in this direction, so it is possible that abolishing PIL completely is unnecessary. He also said that the process of reform and investigation in the existing system has already become strict.

Is this debate related to a larger constitutional question?

The entire matter came up during the ongoing hearing before a larger Constitution bench, which also involves the question of whether an outsider can file a PIL to challenge a religious practice. In such a situation, this debate extends beyond the process to encompass constitutional rights.