Bar On Certain Matters To Be Entertained As PIL Does Not Preclude Court From Doing So In Exercise Of Inherent Power...
Bar on Certain Matters as PIL Does Not Preclude Court From Exercising Inherent Powers: Detailed Explanation
1. Background
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism allowing courts to entertain cases in which the public interest is at stake, even if the petitioner is not personally aggrieved. Over time, the courts have clarified limits on what matters can be entertained as PIL.
However, the existence of a bar on certain matters from being entertained as PIL under procedural rules or statutory provisions does not mean that courts lose their inherent power to act where justice demands intervention.
2. Concept of Inherent Powers of Courts
Courts possess inherent powers under their respective procedural laws (e.g., Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Section 151 CPC) to prevent abuse of process or to meet ends of justice.
Such powers allow courts to entertain or initiate proceedings even if the matter does not fit strictly within the framework of PIL.
These powers are vital to ensure that justice is not denied due to procedural technicalities.
3. Bar on Certain Matters as PIL
Certain matters like service disputes, election petitions, issues relating to personal grievances, or administrative decisions may be barred or considered unsuitable for PIL.
This bar is to prevent misuse of PIL and maintain judicial discipline.
However, courts recognize that serious issues involving public interest might sometimes arise in barred categories, necessitating judicial intervention.
4. Judicial Position: Bar on PIL Does Not Preclude Inherent Powers
The courts have consistently held that even if a matter is barred from being filed as a PIL, courts can intervene suo moto or on other petitions invoking their inherent powers.
5. Relevant Case Law
✅ State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2022) 7 SCC 353
The Supreme Court held that a bar on entertaining certain matters as PIL does not oust the power of courts to exercise inherent jurisdiction.
Courts can act in appropriate cases to prevent miscarriage of justice, uphold constitutional morality, and safeguard fundamental rights.
✅ M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
The Court acknowledged the expansive role of PIL but also noted the need for judicial restraint.
However, it emphasized the Court’s inherent power to act in public interest or for enforcement of fundamental rights, even if procedural bars exist.
✅ Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Though the matter involved guidelines for sexual harassment (not a traditional PIL), the Court used its inherent powers to fill the legislative vacuum.
Established that courts can adopt measures through inherent jurisdiction when there is a public need, despite absence of formal legislation.
✅ Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 8 SCC 417
Supreme Court reiterated that inherent powers under procedural laws empower courts to prevent abuse of process and to do justice.
Bar on PILs in certain domains does not prevent courts from acting where fundamental rights or constitutional principles are at stake.
6. Rationale Behind the Principle
The constitutional role of the judiciary as protector of rights cannot be shackled by procedural bars alone.
Courts must have the flexibility to address issues that affect the public at large, especially where fundamental rights or constitutional values are endangered.
Inherent powers are a safety valve to uphold justice when strict procedural rules fall short.
7. Conclusion
While certain matters may be barred from being entertained as PILs to prevent frivolous or inappropriate litigation, this does not limit or bar courts from invoking their inherent powers to intervene where public interest, fundamental rights, or constitutional issues arise.
This balance ensures that justice remains accessible and effective, without compromising judicial discipline or procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments