NEW DELHI: After dismissing allegations of stock manipulations by Adani group companies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said filing such petitions based on “unverified and unrelated material” tended to diminish the importance of the socially beneficial PIL tool.
A bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “Before concluding, we must observe that public interest jurisprudence under Article 32 of the Constitution was expanded by this court to secure access to justice and provide ordinary citizens with the opportunity to highlight legitimate causes before this court.It has served as a tool to secure justice and ensure accountability on many occasions, where ordinary citizens have approached the court with well-researched petitions that highlight a clear cause of action.”However, petitions that lack adequate research and rely on unverified and unrelated material tend to, in fact, be counter-productive. This word of caution must be kept in mind by lawyers and members of civil society alike.”
The CJI also said that the apex court was not an expert to substitute the view of expert bodies like Sebi with its own view and that courts were not to act as appellate bodies over policies framed by statutory regulators. It would interfere only after finding that the regulator’s actions were arbitrary or violative of constitutional or statutory mandates.
A bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “Before concluding, we must observe that public interest jurisprudence under Article 32 of the Constitution was expanded by this court to secure access to justice and provide ordinary citizens with the opportunity to highlight legitimate causes before this court.It has served as a tool to secure justice and ensure accountability on many occasions, where ordinary citizens have approached the court with well-researched petitions that highlight a clear cause of action.”However, petitions that lack adequate research and rely on unverified and unrelated material tend to, in fact, be counter-productive. This word of caution must be kept in mind by lawyers and members of civil society alike.”
The CJI also said that the apex court was not an expert to substitute the view of expert bodies like Sebi with its own view and that courts were not to act as appellate bodies over policies framed by statutory regulators. It would interfere only after finding that the regulator’s actions were arbitrary or violative of constitutional or statutory mandates.
