PIL a weapon to be used with great care: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has underscored the importance of exercising caution in filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs), stressing that such legal weapons must be used wisely and with great discretion.

Dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Ajai Srivastava, a retired professor of Himachal Pradesh University, the court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him holding that allegations in the matter pertaining to the violation of human rights of children lodged at the Observation Home in Shimla were unsubstantiated and false.

In a 15-page order, Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya reminded that it was more than settled that the PIL is a weapon, which has to be used with great care.

“The circumspection and Judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest or public interest seeking is not lurking”, the court said. “The PIL is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens”.

But, in the case under discussion, not only is there no merit in this petition, but “we find the same to be mischievous, having been filed with an oblique motive of getting publicity but at the same time, adversely affecting the rights of respondents”.

The court said of Rs 50,000 cost to be paid by the petitioner, Rs 35,000 shall be paid to respondent No.4 and Rs 5,000 each shall be paid to respondents No. 5 to 7 as token damages within a period of two weeks.

In the PIL, Srivastava had levelled grave violations of human rights violations of children at an observation home at Hira Nagar near Shimla. The allegations also included physical abuse and neglect of the children in conflict with law by the staff of the Observation Home.

As per court order, an investigation later revealed that these allegations were untrue and unfounded. The bench blamed the petitioner for having acted recklessly, failing to adhere to Rule 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, which mandates due diligence in matters concerning juveniles.