MOHAMED ARIF JAMEEL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that abuse of the noble concept of PIL has been increasing day by day and to curb this, there should be explicit and broad guidelines for entertaining petitions as PILs, vide STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL and OTHERS, (2010) 3 SCC 402. The High Court of Karnataka (PIL) Rules, 2018 have been accordingly promulgated under Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India. These Rules having been duly published vide Gazette Notification dtd. 11/7/2019 are now in force. Rule 14 contains instructions for filing Public Interest Litigations. Sub-rule (1) provides for what all a writ petition intended to be a Public Interest Litigation shall contain. On perusal of the petition averments, we are satisfied that the requirement of this Rule has not been substantially complied with. No plausible explanation is offered by the petitioner for such non-compliance, either. The contention of petitioner's counsel that strict adherence should not be expected if countenanced, may result in the gradual degeneration of the very prescription, and this would not augur well to the adjudication of social action litigations of the kind.

(3.) There is yet another reason as to why we are not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter: the very concept of PIL adjudication was conceived by the Apex Court in respect of worthy causes affecting the public at large but not being brought before the Court by the aggrieved. The issues concerning socially or economically disabled people may go unaddressed or are not effectively responded to, owing to their lack of organization, representation or for the for want of any particular forum for working out their grievances. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, relaxed rules of standing will be due.