A sharp remark from the Supreme Court recently sparked discussion on the quality and seriousness of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) being filed in India.
The Court dismissed multiple PILs filed by a single lawyer, including one seeking a scientific study on whether onion and garlic contain “tamasic” (negative) energy. Expressing strong displeasure, the bench questioned whether such petitions were being drafted “at midnight,” calling them vague, baseless, and poorly structured.
The Court also rejected other petitions from the same set that sought directions on regulating alcohol and tobacco content in food and ensuring mandatory registration of religious properties. According to the bench, the petitions lacked a clear legal foundation and reflected non-application of mind.
This incident highlights a larger concern in India’s litigation landscape. PILs were originally designed as a powerful tool to expand access to justice and protect fundamental rights. However, the misuse of this mechanism with poorly researched or frivolous petitions risks burdening the judiciary and diluting the credibility of genuine public interest litigation.
PIL jurisdiction is extraordinary, and it demands responsibility, research, and serious legal drafting.