Delhi High Court’s Concerns Over PIL Practices
The Delhi High Court has voiced significant concerns regarding the increasing trend of advocates lending their names for filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) without directly engaging with the issues at hand. This development was highlighted during a hearing on Wednesday by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya’s Remarks
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Upadhyaya expressed disappointment over this practice, stating, “It’s very sad. Lawyers are lending their names for filing PILs without actually working on it. I am very sorry, I may be excused if I am saying something wrong…It is very, very sad. The question is why did petitioner lend her name? It is a practice here that people are ready to lend their names just for filing PILs. Why should she file the PIL in her name?”
Case Overview
The PIL under scrutiny was filed by an advocate who raised concerns about certain applications available on Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store, alleging that they facilitate pornographic content, immoral trafficking, prostitution, substance abuse, illegal arms trade, and organized crime. It emerged during the hearing that the advocate, a practicing lawyer, had initially sent a legal notice to some respondents on behalf of a client before proceeding to file the PIL independently. Moreover, it was revealed that the advocate’s senior had previously represented one of the respondents.
Arguments by Advocate Tanmaya Mehta
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Tanmaya Mehta defended the action, arguing that if a lawyer encounters a public menace while representing a client, that could serve as a basis for filing a PIL. He stated, “If in the course of representing a client, a lawyer comes across a public menace, can that not form the basis of a PIL? Does the lawyer have any personal interest in a lis where he represents a client? In my humble submission, the answer is no.” Mehta suggested that the contents of the PIL could be considered by the Central government as a representation.
Judicial Observations on Impropriety
Chief Justice Upadhyaya acknowledged that while the petitioner’s actions might not constitute legal misconduct, they could still be deemed improper. He questioned, “Why did she file a PIL in her name when she or her senior represented one of the respondents?”
More Read
Resolution and Withdrawal of PIL
In response to the Court’s concerns, Mehta proposed withdrawing the PIL and refiling it if deemed necessary, or alternatively, the Court could treat it as a representation to the government. The Bench suggested that withdrawal would be the best course of action. Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing an intervenor, emphasized the need to maintain ethical standards, warning against crossing certain lines. He noted, “There is a pattern. There are counsel who are in every order. There is a pattern of behaviour, which your lordship will see. And that’s why your lordship is absolutely right. We must call out this behaviour.”
Ultimately, the Bench permitted the withdrawal of the PIL, underscoring the importance of maintaining integrity and consciousness in legal proceedings.
