The Supreme Court on Friday advised a legal practitioner to utilize his expertise to “make authorities wiser” rather than immediately approaching the judiciary with Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The observation came as a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant permitted advocate Sachin Gupta to withdraw 25 separate petitions he had filed on a diverse array of subjects.
The bench, which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, emphasized that members of the bar should adopt an analytical approach to identify social issues and attempt to sensitize the relevant government departments before seeking judicial intervention.
As the matters were called for hearing, Gupta, appearing as a petitioner-in-person, expressed his intent to withdraw the bulk of his filings.
“You concentrate on the profession,” Chief Justice Surya Kant told the advocate. “You should approach the authorities, make them wiser on certain issues instead of rushing to the court.”
The Court noted that while it remains open to entertaining such petitions at an “appropriate stage” if the need arises, the primary responsibility of a person with legal knowledge is to try and resolve issues through administrative channels first. “If nothing happens, then the petitioner may approach the court,” the bench remarked.
The 25 PILs filed by Gupta covered an expansive spectrum of administrative and social policy issues. Key prayers in the petitions included:
- Language & Legal Literacy: Directions to frame a policy for a “common link language” for official purposes and a mandate for television shows dedicated to spreading legal awareness among the general public.
- Consumer Safety: Guidelines regarding the chemical composition of soaps, specifically requesting that only chemicals which kill harmful bacteria—while sparing bacteria essential for skin health—be permitted.
- Social Welfare: Policies for the upliftment of disadvantaged groups, including beggars and the transgender community.
This is not the first time Gupta’s filings have come under the top court’s scrutiny. On March 9, the Court dismissed five other petitions by the same advocate, labeling them “vague, frivolous, and baseless.”
One of those dismissed petitions had sought a scientific study into whether onion and garlic contain “tamasic” (negative) energy. During that hearing, the Chief Justice had reprimanded the advocate, asking in Hindi, “Aadhi raat ko yeh sab petition draft karte ho kya?” (Do you draft all these petitions in the middle of the night?)
Other dismissed pleas included requests to regulate specific contents in alcohol and tobacco products.
The Court’s latest directions reinforce the principle that the PIL mechanism should be used as a tool of last resort after administrative remedies have been exhausted.
