Supreme Court Reaffirms Sanctity of Well-Researched PILs Amidst Central Government’s Call for Total Abolition

The judicial exchange unfolded as Chief Justice Kant instructed the advocate to first engage with relevant authorities and sensitize them to specific issues before rushing to the court. The CJI emphasized that legal professionals must adopt an analytical approach, seeking judicial intervention only as a final resort after their prayers to the authorities go unheard. A bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had previously criticized the lawyer for filing multiple frivolous petitions, including a widely scrutinized plea seeking a scientific study on whether onion and garlic contain "tamasic" or negative energy. This particular petition cited the dietary practices of the Jain community, which avoids root vegetables, leading the court to question if the petitions were drafted "in the middle of the night" and whether the petitioner intended to hurt the sentiments of the Jain community.

The court's dismissal of five of Gupta’s petitions as "frivolous, vague, and baseless" coincided with a broader debate sparked by the Centre during hearings on the constitutional challenge to the ban on women aged 10-50 at Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. The Central government argued that PILs were an exceptional device born of an era when poverty, illiteracy, and social exclusion barred citizens from justice—barriers it claims have been mitigated by technological progress and expanded legal aid. However, Chief Justice Kant countered that the judiciary has already implemented rigorous parameters and factors to examine the "real cause" behind every filing, ensuring that the tool remains a vital, though carefully guarded, pillar of Indian constitutional law.