PIL Orders Must Not Destroy Rights of Non-Parties: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that orders passed in public interest litigations (PILs) should not end up defeating the very purpose of public interest jurisdiction. Court observed that while PILs are meant to secure public good, directions issued in such cases should not damage the lawful rights of citizens, especially those who are not even made parties to the proceedings.

Emphasising the need for caution while dealing with PILs, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and N V Anjaria held that courts must remain disciplined in exercising public interest jurisdiction. The Bench said that an order in a PIL should not operate to derecognise legitimate private interests or lawful rights enjoyed by citizens and third parties.

The observations came while allowing appeals against two Madhya Pradesh High Court judgments of 2015. The high court had directed authorities to remove shops constructed by the Municipal Council, Khachrod, Ujjain and allotted to private individuals, accepting the contention in a PIL that the shops had been built on land known as 'Dussehra Maidan', allegedly reserved for Dussehra celebrations and cultural events.

The Supreme Court noted that public interest jurisdiction exercised by constitutional courts flows from Article 226 of the Constitution. It observed that a PIL, in its substance, procedure and purpose, is essentially a petition under Article 226.

"Travelling into the area to adjudicate the titular issues would be a wrongful exercise of public interest jurisdiction," the Bench held.

Why did the Supreme Court find fault with the high court's order?

The Supreme Court noted that the shop allottees, who had been in possession of the shops for years, were never made parties to the PIL proceedings. Despite being directly affected by the demolition order, they were not given an opportunity to present their case before the high court passed its order on April 20, 2015.

The Bench said the high court committed a manifest error by rejecting the review petitions filed by the affected allottees. It pointed out that the review petitions clearly stated that the allottees-cum-occupants-cum-possessors of the shops had not been impleaded or heard before the demolition directions were issued.

Court further underscored that disputed questions relating to title cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Referring to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench observed that a judgment passed without joining necessary parties and which directly affects their rights is tainted by an "error apparent on the face of the record". Such an error, Court explained, is one that is self-evident and does not require elaborate reasoning to identify.

The Bench said that whenever such an apparent error exists, courts should not hesitate to exercise review jurisdiction to correct the injustice and restore justice to the aggrieved party.

In the present case, Court found that the review petitioners were directly affected by the demolition order and were denied any opportunity to represent their interests.

"For them their Fundamental Right to do trade and business was at stake getting infringed. They were indeed necessary parties in absence of whom, the order and the directions of the kind and nature could not have been passed by the High Court. The order of the High Court was not just in breach of natural justice but was also one which resulted into extremely serious civil consequences finally smothering the rights of the third parties-the review petitioners," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court also found that the High Court had misjudged the facts while directing demolition of the shops.

Noting that several allottees had been occupying the shops since 2005 and regularly paying rent to the Municipal Council, Court said they were entitled, at the very least, to an opportunity to defend their rights. It held that the manner in which the demolition directions were passed defeated the very idea of public interest.

The Bench further noted the Municipality's stand that the PIL petitioner was a disgruntled individual who had not been allotted a shop. According to the Court, the petition appeared to have been filed with an oblique motive and ultimately became detrimental both to the concept of public interest and to the rights of the private appellants.

"It is advisable that the court always remains cautious and disciplined in dealing with and in disposing of the public interest petitions," the Bench observed while setting aside the high court's judgments and dismissing the PIL.