In recent times, the Supreme Court has regularly dismissed frivolous public interest litigation while the court is hard-pressed for time for more important matters.
—
TODAY, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging certain provisions of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The PIL was filed by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Child, an anti-abortion organisation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra was of the view that the Parliament has made the provisions in the interest of women.
The CJI questioned the locus standi of the petitioner. “What is your locus? How are you concerned with the provisions of the MTP Act?” the CJI asked.
In response, the advocate presenting the petition merely replied that it was a PIL.
While the advocate was seeking to refer to Section 3 of the MTP Act, which provides when pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners, the Bench cut him short and asked him to withdraw the petition.
Recently, the Supreme Court, while permitting a rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy, had observed that the right of dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
In a different development today, the Bench also dismissed a PIL seeking exclusion of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Scheduled Areas.
“What is it? You don’t want the IPC to be applied in Scheduled Areas. You can commit murders, etc. Sorry, don’t even argue it. Dismissed,” was the CJI curt comment while expressing his displeasure at the PIL.
The court has expressed its displeasure on unsubstantiated PILs more than once in recent times.
For example, last year, the court had flagged the “thousands of frivolous” PILs being filed, burdening the docket of the courts.
On July 4 this year, a Supreme Court Bench comprising the CJI and Justice P.S. Narasimha had expressed its displeasure at the proliferation of frivolous PILs presented before them.
The CJI had extolled, “These kinds of PILs must stop.”
He had also warned, “We should start imposing costs now because our time is wasted.”
