PIL Purely Based On Newspaper Reports Not Maintainable: Kerala HC

PIL Purely Based On Newspaper Reports Not Maintainable: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition on the ground that it was based "purely on a newspaper report".

A social worker filed a PIL and averred that the reconstruction work of the Perumbuzha bridge in Thrissur, Kerala was being delayed by the "competent authorities" and, to substantiate his case, he produced a report published in Malayalam-language daily Malayala Manorama.

He sought the Court's intervention in directing authorities to complete the reconstruction. However, the Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly said that PIL filed purely on the basis of paper report is not maintainable.

The report essentially highlighted the trouble caused to the public by the regulation of traffic on the bridge, which in turn was necessitated by the dilapidated condition of the bridge.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had not complied with Rule 146A of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, that pertained to public interest writ petition.

As per the Rules, a PIL litigant has to specify the specific cause he or she is seeking to espouse and that there is no authoritative pronouncement in this regard, and to swear to his/her lack of personal interest in the outcome of the case.

The Court quoted a catena of Supreme Court pronouncements that delineated what constituted public interest, the standing and credentials of the litigant (that he was litigating in 'public interest'), and the cautions against submissions that were reckless or vague.

The High Court ultimately found that the present petition did not meet these requirements. The Court giving due consideration to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Public Interest Litigations, held that no writ petition can be entertained merely on news paper reports.