Public interest litigation (PIL) and judicial activism are two concepts, which have become very popular in the public law field in recent years. In fact public interest litigation is an outcome of judicial activism.The concept of PILs has, over the last over two decades, grown and expanded to cover all types of litigations involving the interests of the general public. The concept of PILs was given a convenient handle by courts of law with a view to accommodate and enable the poor, downtrodden and weaker sections of the society to ventilate their grievances and to seek the necessary redressal with the aid and assistance of associations, organisations and public spirited individuals.
My years of filing and pursuing PILs have been occasions of successes and jubilation. There have also been times of despair and dejection. One wonders whether the impact and effect of PILs is dying out. Over the last two decades I have knocked the doors of the High Court on numerous occasions and had twice to make it to the Supreme Court of India. There is no doubt that there is some criticism of PILs on the grounds that valuable time of the Courts is being wasted by bodies invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution and writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution. It may be that, in certain cases, it is a sustainable criticism, but not in all cases. There are several cases where PILs are bonafide litigations and because of the directions issued by the High Court and the Supreme Courts, the grievances of the poorer, downtrodden and disabled sections of society have derived substantial benefits. With this in view one has to agree that in the social point of view, PIL is playing a very important and vital role. There should be some consistency in the manner in which our judges address PILs. Today the success of PILs like any other litigation is at times a gamble, depending on the bench as well as the mood and the inclination of the judges who decide the outcome of the matter. My PIL against the appointment of the president of Goa Administrative Tribunal was to ensure that Government does not trespass into the independence of the judiciary. I had no personal interest in the matter or anything against the person wrongly selected, Esvonta Zoivonta Porobo, who most members of the legal fraternity will agree is personally a very nice and decent individual. It was a painful task to file a writ petition against my own brother in the profession, but any hesitation on my part would have been my failure to comply with my responsibility to the noble legal profession. After due consideration I concluded that Mr. Porobo should not suffer due to a faulty approach followed by the Government in not following the procedure of selection as required by law. It would not be fair for me to allow my brother to undergo financial stress and trauma since he had given up his lucrative law practice to enter the judicial service. I had to adopt a humane approach and withdraw the petition, which I pursued for over two years with the sole goal of protecting the independence of the judiciary. Over the last two decades, I have been able through the judicial process to raise various issues concerning the public. Amongst others the litigations include the wrong decision of the then Panjim Municipal Council to long lease Azad Maidan, one of Panjim's few open spaces, for a commercial sale exhibition, a petition which saw the first Panjim councilor being disqualified. I also challenged the mandatory helmet rule in the '80s; the move to appoint a person who had allegedly forged his and his daughter's date of birth as Director of Education; the move to appoint someone directly as Director of Information bypassing the recruitment procedures and the availability of Dayanand Social Security application forms only with MLAs. The first matter I had to take to the Supreme Court was the appointment by the then Rane Government of an industrialist as chairman of Panjim Planning authority. The Town and Country Planning Act had envisaged that people with knowledge of town and country planning be appointed to the post. So the point that I was contesting was whether the chief minister could appoint a family friend to the coveted post. The Supreme Court opined that they could not direct the government to reverse the appointment. Today people of even lower intelligentsia than that appointment are being appointed to make fortunes at the PDAs. The second matter I took unsuccessfully all the way to the Supreme Court was the appointment of Avinash Vaze as Chairman of the Goa Public Service. I have believed, and continue to believe, that the appointment of Mr. Vaze was highly improper. In Mr. Avinash Vaze's case he was suspended as Deputy Chief (Legal) of E.D.C. and after disciplinary proceedings he incurred a penalty of compulsory retirement. However, in the appeal, the chairman of EDC exonerated Mr. Vaze of the charge by directing him to deposit the amount taken as building advance. This exoneration might have entitled him to continue at EDC but could never have been in place especially in consideration of the high integrity which is required for the appointment of the post of chairman of Goa Public Service Commission. The integrity of the Public Service Commissions is a matter of great concern specially considering the fact that other Public Service Commissions, for example in the Punjab and Maharashtra, have organised scams and even their chairmen were arrested for wrong doings and corruption. My colleague Adv. Jos D' Sousa had the spine to challenge the appointment of Mr. Vilas Thali as Additional Advocate-General and his alleged subsequent financial misconduct. His mere resigning and just recovering the amount falsely drawn does not meet the ends of justice. Criminal proceedings should have been instituted. But Government acts in strange ways. With the inquiry against Mr. Thali himself not having been complete, the former additional Advocate General has been appointed as inquiry officer in an inquiry instituted against a Kadamba Transport corporation official. Filing PILs are no easy task. You have to be ready to endure the backlash and tirade. This should never deter citizens from using the channel to highlight issues of public concern and expose the illegalities committed by those in power. The independence and integrity of the judiciary should be preserved at all costs. Every citizen is duty bound to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is not tampered with. A lawyer, being an officer of the Court, has an even greater obligation to ensure this. The judiciary should always blossom with the fragrance and freshness of it being independent and unadulterated. Agents of the Government should not be allowed to infiltrate into judicial positions.There is a clear distinction between public and private litigation. Never should an attempt be made to redress a private grievance or a vested interest under the guise of a public interest litigation. We should not allow attempts to frustrate and discourage citizens from seeking recourse to PILs for the right causes. And we should be ready to pay the costs as a PIL like any other litigation never comes cheap. Governments cannot tolerate issues of public interest being raised through PILs. Chief minister Manohar Parrikar had last year threatened to amend the law to make it mandatory for anyone filing a PIL to first deposit Rs 50,000. The High court recently directed that the petitioner in a PIL deposit Rs 25,000 before the matter be heard on point of admission itself. The judiciary should take up legal aid and legal awareness on a war footing. Little has happened to radically change things in this area. The legal channels and forums must be more affordable and expeditious so that the weak and vulnerable do not further lose their hope and faith in the judicial system. In this context I refer to a retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, who, on a visit to Goa last year ago spoke out of how rotten the whole judic ial system is. What did he do to improve it when he was part of the same system? It is always easy to criticise but one should have the courage and conviction to speak out instead of being a party to things one does not concur with. Aires Rodrigues Ribandar ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
