The Supreme Court on Monday sharply rebuked a lawyer for filing a cluster of public interest petitions the Bench described as poorly drafted, vague and entirely unnecessary. In a brief but pointed hearing, the Court dismissed four separate PILs that touched on issues ranging from alcohol regulation and land registration to the supposed “tamasic” nature of onions and garlic.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the petitions together and rejected them one after another, criticising the casual manner in which they had been brought before the Court.
At one point during the proceedings, the Chief Justice openly questioned the quality of the filings, asking the petitioner whether the drafts had been prepared late at night. The remark set the tone for the hearing, with the Bench suggesting that such petitions reflected a growing tendency to treat PILs like a routine filing exercise rather than a serious constitutional tool.
One of the dismissed petitions sought the creation of a policy outlining how languages are granted “classical” status and even proposed recognition for “classical dialects.” The Court found the plea misconceived and said such matters could be taken up with the appropriate authorities instead of invoking the Court’s jurisdiction.
Another petition ventured into unusual territory, referencing beliefs within the Jain community about onions and garlic carrying negative or “tamasic” energy. The Bench questioned why the Court should adjudicate matters tied to religious sentiments and dismissed the plea as baseless.
The Bench also rejected a petition that called for a committee to design a nationwide policy aimed at registering unregistered properties. Judges described the filing as a clear example of a petition prepared without adequate thought.
A fourth plea met a similar fate, with the Court noting that its requests were vague and lacked any substantial legal question worthy of consideration.
Although the Court refrained from imposing financial penalties, it issued a stern warning to the petitioner. The judges made it clear that repeated filing of such loosely prepared petitions could invite costs in the future, underscoring that the Court’s writ jurisdiction should not be burdened with frivolous litigation.
