“Do You Draft These Petitions at Midnight?”: Supreme Court Slams Frivolous 4 PILs

A recent hearing in Sachin Gupta v. Union of India and Others saw the Supreme Court strongly criticise the filing of multiple frivolous public interest litigations. The Court dismissed four petitions filed by Advocate Sachin Gupta, describing them as poorly drafted and lacking any substantial legal issue.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matters together. The petitions covered unrelated issues such as alcohol regulation, classical languages, land registration policies and even claims that onions and garlic carry negative or tamasic energy.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed serious concern about the increasing misuse of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. The judges observed that the petitions reflected a casual approach in invoking the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction and unnecessarily burdened the Court with avoidable litigation.

While addressing the petitioner, the Chief Justice made a pointed remark questioning the quality of the filings. He asked the lawyer, “Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya? (Do you draft these petitions at midnight?)”.

The Court also criticised the growing trend of filing public interest petitions without proper legal basis. At one stage, the Bench remarked, “Dukaane aise bohot chala rakhi hai tum logo ne (You people are running a lot of these PIL shops).”

One of the petitions sought directions for the government to frame a policy defining criteria for declaring languages as classical languages and for recognising “classical dialects.” The Court dismissed the plea, stating that it was “wholly misconceived” and did not raise any substantial legal question requiring constitutional adjudication.

Another petition attempted to raise concerns based on Jain beliefs that onions and garlic generate negative energy. The judges questioned why the Court should sit in judgement over the religious sentiments of a particular community. The Bench dismissed the plea as baseless.

The Court also rejected a petition requesting the creation of a committee to examine the feasibility of a nationwide registration drive for unregistered property. According to the judges, the petition demonstrated complete non-application of mind while drafting and was entirely frivolous.

A fourth petition was similarly dismissed after the Bench found that its prayers were vague, evasive and unsupported by any serious legal argument.

In its order, the Court noted that the petitions were poorly drafted and did not raise any meaningful legal questions. The Bench remarked that such cases ordinarily deserved exemplary costs to discourage irresponsible litigation.

However, considering that the petitioner was an advocate, the Court refrained from imposing costs on this occasion. Instead, it issued a stern warning to the lawyer to refrain from filing or pursuing such petitions in the future.

The judgement highlights the Supreme Court’s concern over the growing misuse of public interest litigation and emphasises the need for responsible invocation of the Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.