Supreme Court Critiques the Evolution of PILs
The Supreme Court criticized the misuse of Public Interest Litigations, calling them 'Private', 'Publicity', 'Paisa', and 'Political' Interest Litigations. The remarks came amid hearings on discrimination against women in religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple. The discussion questions the validity and motives behind certain PILs.
- Country:
- India
The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the evolving nature of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), asserting that many have shifted from their original intent to serve 'Private', 'Publicity', 'Paisa', and 'Political' interests.
These remarks were made during a hearing by a nine-judge Constitution bench addressing gender discrimination at religious sites, notably the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The bench included Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, among others.
The court questioned the basis of a 2006 PIL by the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenging the ban on women aged 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple, suggesting the PIL lacked substantive grounds. The debate continues on the genuine scope and application of PILs.
(With inputs from agencies.)
ALSO READ
Have asked all HCs to conduct online hearings: CJI Surya Kant
Will set up 7-judge benches to hear constitutional references, says CJI Surya Kant
CJI Surya Kant says he criticised those who entered legal profession with fake, bogus degrees.
Pained to read how section of media misquoted my oral observations made during a frivolous case: CJI Surya Kant on 'parasite' remark.
CJI Surya Kant clarifies 'parasites' remarks, says, 'totally baseless to suggest that I criticised the youth of our nation'.
Google News