Supreme Court Rejects Batch Of 25 PILs, Warns Against Casual Public Interest Litigation

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain 25 public interest litigation petitions filed by advocate Sachin Gupta, while strongly expressing concern over the growing number of such pleas from one lawyer. The Bench also advised him to focus on his professional work instead of repeatedly approaching the Court with wide-ranging policy demands.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, heard the matters. During the hearing, the Bench made it clear that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used casually for every social, political, or administrative issue placed before the Court.

The Bench told the petitioner, “Concentrate on the profession. When the time is correct we will entertain the cases as well. But first try to sensitise and deal with issues.” After this observation, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw all 25 petitions, which the Court allowed.

While granting withdrawal, the Court recorded, “PIL is purportedly in public interest. Not entertained.” The brief order reflected the Court’s unwillingness to examine the petitions any further. The remarks also showed judicial concern about the misuse of PIL jurisdiction for matters lacking proper legal basis.

The petitions covered an unusually broad range of subjects. They included demands for a common link language for India, a legal awareness television show, regulation of chemicals used in soaps, and a nationwide FSSAI registration drive. Some petitions also dealt with food, animal welfare, and legal education reform.

Other pleas sought policies on social media use by government officials, gun use, signboards at food shops, mandatory screen protectors for televisions and laptops, and even population control. One petition reportedly sought recriminalising adultery along with a provision for a sex agreement.

The list did not end there. The petitioner had also asked for changes connected to national identity, including suggestions involving the national anthem, a new calendar called “Bharat Samvat,” and a fresh national democratic symbol. Another plea sought a committee to examine the feasibility of a two-alliance political system in India.

This is not the first time the Court has taken objection to petitions filed by the same lawyer. Last month, the Supreme Court had already dismissed four PILs moved by him. Those petitions covered subjects such as alcohol regulation, land registration, and even whether onions and garlic carry negative or tamasic energy.

At that earlier hearing on March 26, the Court had sharply criticised the drafting style of the petitions. Chief Justice Surya Kant had remarked, “Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya?” The Bench had also spoken against people appearing to run “PIL shops,” signalling concern over frivolous litigation before the top court.

The latest order again underlines that public interest litigation is a serious constitutional remedy. The Supreme Court’s response shows that it expects PILs to be carefully prepared, legally sound, and genuinely connected to public causes, rather than being used as a platform for scattered policy suggestions.