Judgment Analysis Of Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court Of India: A Comprehensive Study Of Public Interest Litigation

Case title:

Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India

Date of Order: 12 October 2017

Bench:  Hon’ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Parties:  

PETITIONER(S)- MS. INDIRA JAISING

RESPONDENT(S)- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

SUBJECT

• The subject of the case, Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, pertains to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. 
• Ms. Indira Jaising, a renowned human rights lawyer and activist, filed a PIL challenging specific provisions that she argued undermined the spirit of justice and impartiality in PIL proceedings.
• The court acknowledged the potential risks of abuse of PIL but also recognized the significance of the PIL mechanism in promoting social justice. It upheld the broad interpretation of locus standi, citing that it expanded access to justice for the underprivileged and allowed the court to address public interest concerns that might otherwise go unnoticed.
• The court analyzed the provisions challenged and the principles of justice, separation of powers, and the importance of PIL in serving the interests of the public.
• n this case Supreme Court lifts veil of Secrecy the System of Designating an Advocate as a 
• Senior Advocates and framed guidelines to designate lawyers as Senior Advocate
• n this case Supreme Court lifts veil of Secrecy the System of Designating an Advocate as a 
• Senior Advocates and framed guidelines to designate lawyers as Senior Advocate
• n this case Supreme Court lifts veil of Secrecy the System of Designating an Advocate as a 
• Senior Advocates and framed guidelines to designate lawyers as Senior Advocate

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• The locus standi of petitioners: PIL allows any citizen or NGO to approach the court on behalf of the affected masses. The appellant may challenge the broad interpretation of locus standi, arguing that it could lead to frivolous and politically motivated litigations.
• Costs and damages: PILs are often filed by activists who seek social justice but lack the resources to bear heavy costs and damages if the petition fails. The appellant may question the sufficiency of safeguards against the imposition of costs on unsuccessful PILs.
• Scope of issues: PIL can address a wide range of public interest concerns, including environmental, social, and economic issues. The appellant may argue for clearer guidelines on the scope of issues that can be taken up under PIL to prevent potential abuse.

OVERVIEW

The case of Indira Jaising vs. the Supreme Court of India revolves around the fundamental principles of PIL and its impact on justice delivery. Ms. Indira Jaising challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in PIL, alleging that they violated the principles of natural justice, due process, and the separation of powers. 

The Supreme Court of India admitted the PIL and heard the arguments to determine the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions.

ISSUES RAISED

The flaws in the Supreme Court of India and the need for rectification and the establishment of clear parameters have resulted in the filing of Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Declare the recently introduced method of vote for the designation of Senior Advocates as arbitrary and contrary to diversity principles, thereby violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, making it unconstitutional and void.

(b) Establish a permanent Selection Committee headed by a layperson, including the Attorney General of India, representatives from SCBA, AOR Association, and academics. This committee will assess Senior Advocates based on a point system as suggested in Annexure P8.

(c) Instruct the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to appoint a Search Committee to identify Advocates involved in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and those specializing in areas such as constitutional law, international arbitration, inter-State water disputes, cyber laws, etc., and designate them as Senior Advocates.

(d) Direct the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court to frame guidelines requiring the preparation of an Assessment Report by the Peers Committee for Advocates applying for designation based on an index of 100 points as proposed in Annexure P8.

(e) Reconsider the decisions made in the Full Court meetings held on 11.02.2014 and 23.04.2015 and designate as Senior Advocates all those Advocates whose applications seeking designation received recommendations from not less than five Judges of the Supreme Court, including deferred applicants, during the circulation process ordered by the Chief Justice.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• Violation of Separation of Powers: Ms. Jaising argued that certain provisions of PIL allowed the judiciary to intrude upon the legislative and executive domains, leading to a violation of the principle of separation of powers. She contended that the judiciary must refrain from making policy decisions that fall within the purview of the other branches of government.
• Abuse of Process: The appellant claimed that the loose interpretation of locus standi enabled politically motivated individuals and organizations to file PILs without any genuine public interest. This, she argued, could lead to an abuse of the PIL mechanism and undermine its true purpose.
• Costs and Damages: Ms. Jaising asserted that the imposition of heavy costs and damages on unsuccessful PILs deterred well-intentioned activists from raising legitimate public interest concerns. She contended that the fear of personal liability could hinder the advocacy for justice and social causes.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• Upholding Public Interest: The respondent, represented by the Attorney General, argued that PIL was a vital instrument for upholding the interests of the public and marginalized sections of society. It provided an avenue for the underprivileged to seek justice when they couldn't approach the court individually.
• Broad Interpretation of Locus Standi: The respondent defended the broad interpretation of locus standi, stating that it allowed the courts to hear and address genuine public interest issues, even when the affected parties were unable to approach the court directly.
• Checks and Balances: The respondent emphasized that the judiciary exercised restraint and only intervened in cases where there was a clear public interest concern and where the other branches of government had failed to address the issue adequately.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

In Singapore, the process for the appointment of Senior Counsel is prescribed under Part IV: Privileges of Advocates and Solicitors in the Legal Profession Act. Section 30 lays down the following process:

• A Selection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and the Judges of Appeal may appoint an advocate and solicitor or a Legal Service Officer as Senior Counsel if the committee believes that the individual deserves such distinction based on their ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law.
• A quorum of three members is required for every meeting of the Selection Committee, and no business can be conducted unless the quorum is present.
• The Selection Committee has the authority to establish its own practices and regulate its procedures, subject to the provisions of this section.
• The appointment of a Senior Counsel will be revoked if the Senior Counsel. a) If a Legal Service Officer, is dismissed from the Singapore Legal Service. b) If a member of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore or the School of Law of the Singapore Management University, is dismissed from the respective Faculty or School. c) Is convicted of an offense by a court of law in Singapore or elsewhere and sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than 12 months or fined not less than $2,000, and has not received a free pardon. d) Becomes mentally disordered and unable to manage themselves or their affairs. e) Is an undischarged bankrupt. f) Enters into a composition with creditors or a deed of arrangement with creditors.
• The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments presented by both the appellant and the respondent, delivered its judgment in the case of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India. The court analyzed the provisions challenged and the principles of justice, separation of powers, and the importance of PIL in serving the interests of the public.
• The court acknowledged the potential risks of abuse of PIL but also recognized the significance of the PIL mechanism in promoting social justice. 
• It upheld the broad interpretation of locus standi, citing that it expanded access to justice for the underprivileged and allowed the court to address public interest concerns that might otherwise go unnoticed.
• The court, however, emphasized the need for a balanced approach, cautioning against frivolous PILs and asserting the importance of genuine public interest as the foundation for such petitions. 
• It also clarified that while PILs were crucial for social justice, they should not interfere with the functioning of the other branches of government.

CONCLUSION

• The judgment of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the importance of Public Interest Litigation in upholding social justice and promoting the interests of the marginalized. While recognizing the potential risks of misuse, the court upheld the broad interpretation of locus standi as necessary to ensure access to justice for the underprivileged.
• The case highlighted the delicate balance that the judiciary must maintain in striking down frivolous PILs while safeguarding the rights of activists to advocate for public interest causes. 
• The judgment also underscored the principle of separation of powers, emphasizing that the judiciary's role in PILs should not encroach upon the functions of the legislature and the executive.
• Overall, the case of Indira Jaising vs. the Supreme Court of India contributed significantly to the jurisprudence surrounding PIL in India, guiding the courts in balancing judicial activism with the principles of justice and the rule of law.