Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper reports not maintainable: Kerala High Court [Read Order]

Last week, the Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition on the ground that it was based “purely on a (news)paper report”. (MV Arun v. District Collector and Ors.).The Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly said:.Public Interest Litigation filed purely on the basis of paper report is not maintainable.Kerala High Court.The petition was filed by a social worker seeking the Court’s intervention in directing authorities to complete the reconstruction work of the Perumbuzha bridge in Thrissur, Kerala..He averred that the reconstruction was being delayed by the “competent authorities” and, to substantiate his case, produced in Court a report published in Malayalam-language daily Malayala Manorama. .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 vehemently 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. .The Rule requires a PIL litigant 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..“Giving due consideration to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on Public Interest Litigations, merely on news paper reports, no writ petition can be entertained”, the Court said..Advocates CA Anoop and R Krishna appeared for the petitioner while Senior Government Pleader Surin George Ipe represented the respondents.