New Delhi: Public Interest Litigations (PIL) can become an “instrument of blackmail” to target infrastructure projects, the Supreme Court observed Friday as it upheld a Bombay High Court order that imposed a Rs 1 lakh fine on an NGO for filing a “motivated” PIL against a redevelopment project in Mumbai.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud made the observations while hearing NGO Sarthi Seva Sangh’s appeal challenging the HC’s September order levying the fine. The HC’s direction to the NGO to pay the fine within two weeks to Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai’s Parel was also endorsed by the apex court.
“PILs could become an instrument of blackmail when it is an issue of an infrastructure project. This actually makes a plank to target such projects. The high court has actually smelled a rat here. This is happening across Delhi, Mumbai, etc,” the CJI remarked.
In cases where a particular property is targeted in a PIL, like in the (present) case, the high court is often aware why the party has approached the court, he further said.
The bench then went on to uphold the HC’s order, in which it dismissed the NGO’s PIL for being “extraneous, motivated, devoid of any public interest”.
Also read: Case finder software to Judges Act amendment—20 steps to end pendency in Indian Courts
The case and appeal
The NGO Sarthi Seva Sangh had moved the HC challenging the redevelopment of a plot at Worli.
Its PIL alleged that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had illegally granted additional Floor Space Index (FSI) for the plot where a commercial building had come up.
The additional FSI was granted considering the notional plot area of the plot to be 3,124.09 sqm, when the actual physical area measured was 1,672.26 sqm, according to the NGO’s petition in the HC. It was argued that granting additional FSI on notional plot area was illegal.
To justify its locus as a petitioner, the NGO had claimed that one of the objects under its Memorandum of Association (MoA) was to promote ecology. But on a perusal of the MoA, the HC found that the petitioner was in no way connected to preservation of ecology.
The HC further noted that office-bearers and members of the NGO were residents of Bandra and Kurla, while the plot in question was located in Worli. Moreover, the HC observed, the petitioner had targeted only one building although there are a large number of illegal constructions in Mumbai.
Also, a PIL was filed in 2017 challenging the same redevelopment project, but was withdrawn in 2019.
The NGO’s appeal in the SC argued that the HC “grossly ignored” its own rules on PILs that allow filing of a petition to protect “public law interest” that would include violation of “planning law”. A petitioner’s locus standi is not required to be disclosed in case a petition is filed in public law interest.
However, the SC concurred with the HC’s opinion and felt that the idea of the PIL was to target the project, which the HC had sensed.
“When a particular property is targeted in a PIL, the high court is often aware why the party has approached the court. The idea is to target one project and the high court often knows why it is happening,” the apex court remarked.
The CJI recollected his stint as a Bombay High Court judge and observed that in cases involving redevelopment projects, another competitor is often behind such petitions and they join with other builders.
Upholding the HC order, the SC said: “Cost imposed by the high court has to be paid. It is a misuse of judicial time. Cost has to follow the cause.”
Not the first time
This is not the first time Chandrachud has advocated the importance of development projects. In September, the CJI had made critical observations over stalling of projects in the name of climate change.
“Developing countries cannot be told to stop their projects only because they are likely to cause climate change,” he opined, while modifying the apex court’s two-year-old order to allow the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to commence partial development work in the ongoing Mumbai Coastal Road Project.
A bench led by Chandrachud had allowed the corporation’s application to amend the October 2020 order which permitted the civic body to reclaim sea land strictly for the purpose of road construction.
“Only developing countries do not contribute to climate change. Climate change is due to the pollution brought in by developed countries. To say, now, that developing countries must stop their projects would be wrong,” the bench told senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, who was representing an NGO.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also read: In report to SC, Modi government ‘blames’ high courts for delay in judges’ appointments