1988 Supreme(SC) 540

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Sheela Barse, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 3128 of 1988 in Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 1451 of 1985, D/-29-8-1988.

Headnote:(i) Public Interest Litigation - No determination or adjudication of individual rights - Compulsions for the judicial innovation of the technique of a public interest action - No recognition of the status of a Dominus - Litis for any individual or group of individuals to determine the course or destination of the proceedings-The rights of those who bring such action is subordinate to the interests of those for whose benefit the action is brought-Grievance generally is about the content and conduct of governmental action or policies- Relief to be granted is, generally, positive and corrective rather than compensatory - Remedy is both imposed, negotiated or quasi-negotiated - Higher and wide range of responsibility of Courts. (Para 6)

        (ii) Public Interest Litigation-Right of a person who brings this litigation Whether he/she is entitled, as of right, to withdraw the proceedings from the Court? - (No).

       Held, the lowering of locus-standi-threshold does not involve the recognition or creation of any vested rights on the part of those who initiate the proceedings, analogus of Dominus Litis. (Para 6)

       If we acknowledge any such status of a Dominus-Litis to a person who brings a public interest litigation, we will render the proceedings in public interest litigations vulnerable to and susceptible of a new dimension which might, in conceivable cases, be used by persons for personal-ends resulting in prejudice to the public-weal. (Para 12)

        (iii) Public Interest Litigation-Complaints of detention and mal-treatment of children in violation of the law Appropriate directions were issued to the States and authorities concerned Non-compliance by the several States and their authorities with the orders-Remedy: the willing co-operation of the authorities must, as far as possible, be explored Unduly harsh and coercive measures against the States might themselves become counter-productive.

       Held, if the proceedings are allowed to be diverted at every stage into punitive-proceedings for non-compliance, the main concern and purpose of the proceedings might tend to be over-shadowed by its incidental ramifications. The coercive action would, of course, have to be initiated if persuation fails. We are dealing with a large number of States and authorities. There are 32 respondents, 429 districts in which reports of the District Judges have been called for and nearly 400 of them have submitted their reports. There are in numerable jails, sub-jails, remand-homes, custodial-institutions etc. (Para 9)

        (iv) Judicial System-Concept of public accountability-Right to criticise the systemic inadequacies in the public interest- Privileged right - However, the criticism of the functioning of the Court in the course of and in relation to a particular proceeding by the parties to it is not included in this right.

       Held, while comments and criticism of judicial functioning, on matters of principle, are healthy aids for introspection and improvement, the criticism of the functioning of the Court in the course of and in relation to a particular proceeding by the parties to it borders on a conduct intended or tending to impair the dignity, authority and the functional-disposition of the Court. The attitude "we call respect for law" says a learned author "is a complex one". It "my consist for example, in the belief that the law is democratic and fair and that it contributes to social progress or that it protects individual rights. They may include pride that the law of ones country is by and large enlightened and progressive, satisfaction that one lives under the protection of an adequate legal system, respect or even admiration for institutions or persons involved in creating or administering the law and for symbols of the law "[See The Authority of Law" by Joseph Raz, 1979 Edn. page 251. It is, therefore, thought important to maintain respect and dignity of the Courts and its officers whose task is to uphold and enforce the law because without such respect public faith in the administration of justice would be undermined and the law itself would fall into disrespect. What excites general dissatisfaction with the judicial determinations of the Court also indisposes the minds of litigants to obey them shaking mens allegiance of law. "Laws are not made by Legislatures alone, but by the law abiding as well; the Statute ceases to embody a law (except in a formal sense) in the degree that it is widely disregarded." (Paras 9 & 10)

        (v) Public Interest Litigation - Right of applicant of addressing communications to Judge by postal letters in regard to the pending cases or on matters bearing on them-Not recognised-What is sought to be brought to the notice of the Court should, as far as possible, be filed in the Registry for being placed before the appropriate bench.

       Held, the difficulties arising out of such direct-communications are too obvious to require any elaborate discussion. The opposite parties would not have had the benefit of the information contained in the communication. Sometimes, even the other Judges on the Bench would not know. The authenticity and even the delivery of the communication may be disputed. It is only proper that judges who have to decide the case should not be drawn into such controversies. That apart the office would not be able to check the papers and process them for appropriate judicial notice. Judicial tradition considers, for good reason, such practice undesirable. Applicant, however, has, and is entitled to, her own view sin the matter. We regret our inability to accept them. (Para 14)

        (vi) Judicial Trial-No litigant can be permitted to stipulate conditions with the Court for the continuance of his or her participation. (Para 16)

        (vii) Constitution of India-Article 32 -Public Interest Litigation-Complaints of detention and mal-treatment of children in violation of the law-Certain important and far reaching actions were initiated-Appropriate directions were issued to the States and the authorities concerned-Prayer for withdrawal of the petition-Refused-However, the applicant be deleted from the array of parties in this proceeding - Direction to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee to prosecute the petition-Order forbidding the applicant from using the information collected by her during her visit to jails and other institutions during the proceedings. (Para 18)

       PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION—PERSON WHO BROUGHT SUCH LITIGATION CLAIMED TO WITHDRAW IT AND THAT THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED BY ANYBODY ELSE HELD NOT MAINTAINABLE—HE IS NOT DOMINUS LITIS - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION—IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PARTY TO LITIGATE TO WRITE LETTERS TO JUDGES-THEY SHOULD BE FILED IN REGISTRY - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION—PERMISSION TO USE INFORMATIONS COLLECTED BY APPLICANT DURING HER VISIT IN JAILS ON DIRECTIONS OF COURT NOT GRANTED AS SUCH INFORMATIONS WERE GATHERED FOR PURPOSE OF THE CASE

       IMPORTANT POINTS

        In a Public Interest Litigation, a public minded person who brings such an action is not entitled, as of right, to withdraw the proceedings from the Court as there is no recognition of any such vested right in the persons who initiate such proceedings.

       2. In proceedings which are already initiated and are pending it would be inappropriate for a party to the proceedings to communicate to Judges by postal letters in regard to the Cases or on matters bearing on them.