‘Pro bono publico’; 20 Significant PILs filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation [CPIL]

Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a Non-Governmental Organisation which is known of filing Public Interest Litigations in Apex Court and other High Courts highlighting issues involving national interest and those affecting common man, is in news, this time, for a different reason. Last week, the CJI, while hearing a fresh PIL filed by CPIL challenging the grant of 4G spectrum licenses to Reliance Jio Info comm Ltd, is reported to have told Prashant Bhushan that 50 PILs have been filed by the CPIL over the years, but it was of the impression that the NGO “did not have any credible mechanism to verify the information which formed the basis for filing the PILs”. In reply the CPIL filed detailed written submission explaining the working of CPIL. In the landmark 2G Judgment the role of CPIL was acknowledged and appreciated by the Supreme Court .Here is a list of 20 Significant PILs filed by CPIL1. 1995: Discretionary allotment of petroleum products/LPG/SKO dealership Prior to 1995, the Minister of Petroleum in exercise of his discretion had been allotting retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG dealership and SKO dealership, without having any prescribed norms. CPIL, filed Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court praying that guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion in the matter of such allotment, which results in exercise of the discretion arbitrarily be fixed.The Court issued a set of guidelines for discretionary allotment of petroleum products agencies to ensure that the exercise of discretion in making such allotments are in conformity with the rule of law and by excluding the likelihood of arbitrariness and minimising the area of discretion.2. 2003 : Disinvestment of HPCL/BPCL restrainedCPIL challenged the decision of the Government to sell majority of shares in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to private parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction.The Supreme Court allowed these petitions restraining the Central Government from proceeding with disinvestment resulting in HPCL and BPCL ceasing to be Government companies without appropriately amending the statutes concerned suitably3. 2005: Neera Yadav removed from Chief Secretary post.This Petition was filed by CPIL challenging the appointment of Neera Yadav as the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh despite there being several corruption cases pending against her. She was ordered to be removed from the post of the Chief Secretary by the Court vide judgment reported in (2005) 8 SCC 202.4. 2011 : PJ Thomas appointment as CVC held illegalThe CPIL had challenged legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.The Supreme Court held that recommendation of the High Powered Committee recommending the name of Shri P.J.Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner is non-est in law and, consequently, the appointment of P.J. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner was quashed.5. 2012 : CBI investigation in 2G scamThe Delhi High Court had refused to entertain the writ petition filed by CPIL for a court monitored investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigating Team into what has been termed as ‘2G Spectrum Scam’ for unearthing the role of respondent No.5-Shri A. Raja, the then Union Minister for the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), senior officers of that department, middlemen, businessmen and others. The CPIL preferred appeal in Supreme Court.Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct the investigation without being influenced by any functionary, agency or instrumentality of the State and irrespective of the position, rank or status of the person to be investigated/probed.6. 2012 : Cancellation of 2G Spectrum allocations.CPIL sought cancellation of 2G spectrum allocation and 122 telecom licenses awarded in 2008. The Court cancelled the entire allocation of 2G spectrum and 122 telecom licenses, and directed fresh auction vide its judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1.7. 2013: Right to safe food under Article 21CPIL preferred a Writ petition for constituting an independent Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children, and also for a direction to Union of India to put in place a regulatory regime which could control and check the contents in a particular chemical additive in foods, including soft drinks. Further, direction was also sought for against respondent no. 1 to make it mandatory for the soft drinksThe Supreme Court held that any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A paramount duty is cast on the States and its authorities to achieve an appropriate level of protection to human life and health which is a ...

‘Pro bono publico’; 20 Significant PILs filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation [CPIL]

Ashok KM

Tags