SC scoffs at frivolous PILs; one plea wanted 'male pronouns' to be abolished

The Supreme Court on Tuesday witnessed at least four "frivolous" PILs all of which were junked by the bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. Interestingly, one of them sought direction to abolish male pronouns. -- Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its reservations over 'frivolous cases' being filed in the apex court and pulled up petitioners for their acts of “abuse of process of the court”.

Four PILs were listed before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and comprising justice P. S. Narasimha. One of the PILs was filed by a law student who sought direction to abolish male pronouns in the constitutional provisions. The plea contended that it violated fundamental rights. The top court wondered how it violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights.

The CJI expressed his disinclination in entertaining the petition and questioned the petitioner’s background. He advised the petitioner to pursue legal education instead. The bench told the petitioner, “Why didn’t you study in law school instead of coming here with such PILs” and junked the plea after a brief hearing. The bench made it clear that it would have imposed costs on the petitioner had he not been a law student. “We should start imposing costs now...," the bench said.

Another PIL filed by advocate Sachin Gupta sought a direction for framing a policy for the reclassification of the caste system. The top court said that the invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution has been sought for directing the respondents “to frame a policy for reclassification of the caste system to eliminate discrimination within the spirit of constitution to make progressive democratic civilized society” and for other relieves.

The top court, in its order, said, “We accordingly dismiss the petition and direct that the petitioner shall pay costs quantified at Rs 25,000 to the Advocate’s Welfare Fund of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The petitioner shall produce a receipt in regard to the payment of costs to the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks”.

Another PIL filed by advocate Sachin Gupta sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the apex court for a direction to all states and union territories to frame a policy to phase out “reservation in gradual manner and make alternative policy”. The invocation under the jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. "The Petition is dismissed subject to payment of costs of Rs 25,000 to the Advocate’s Welfare Fund of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The petitioner shall produce a receipt in regard to the payment of costs to the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks”.

And, finally, in a PIL filed by one S. Venkatesh, the top court said the petitioner has not demonstrated how he is aggrieved by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, which is sought to be challenged in a purported Public Interest Litigation.

“Without expressing any opinion on the question of law which is raised, we decline to entertain the Writ Petition on that ground. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of”, said the top court in its order. During the hearing of these PILs, the top court emphasised the importance of the court's time and observed that such PILs, which lack a genuine public interest or a legal basis, should be discouraged.