Supreme Court slams 'publicity PIL' on judicial reforms, says 'courts not meant for camera time'

Supreme Court

• Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking all cases be decided within a year
• Court warns against using PILs for publicity and public performance
• Petitioner allowed to submit reform suggestions via letter to CJI

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday firmly shut the door on what it described as a “publicity interest litigation,” dismissing a PIL that sought sweeping judicial reforms, including a mandate that every court in the country must decide cases within a year.

The court made it clear that the judicial forum cannot be turned into a stage to address cameras waiting outside.

The plea was heard by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi.

From the outset, the bench questioned the feasibility of the demand, asking how such a blanket direction could possibly be implemented across India’s vast and overburdened judicial system.

The petition had been filed by Kamlesh Tripathi, who appeared in person. During the hearing, Tripathi sought permission to argue in Hindi and urged the court to view his petition as an attempt to bring about systemic change.

CJI Kant, however, was unconvinced that a PIL was the appropriate route for such aspirations.

“Aap desh me badlaav chahte haina? Aapko aisa petition daalne ki zaroorat nahi hai, aap ek patra likh kar mujhe bhej dijiye (You want to change the country, right? You don’t need to file such a petition, you can simply write a letter and send it to me),” the CJI remarked, suggesting that administrative suggestions could be conveyed through a letter rather than through litigation.

The bench repeatedly flagged concerns over the growing trend of what it termed “publicity interest litigations.”

Taking a sharp view of the petitioner’s motives, CJI Kant cautioned against using the court as a platform for public performance.

“Aap log sirf jo bahar cameraman khade hai unke saamne bolne ke liye petition mat daaliye (Do not file petitions just so you can speak in front of the cameras outside),” he said.

Highlighting the impracticality of the one-year deadline sought for all cases, the CJI posed a pointed question to the petitioner: “Aap keh rahe hai ek saal mein har court faisla kare? Aisi kitne courts chahiye aapko?”  (You are saying every court should decide within a year? How many such courts do you want?)

Dismissing the plea, the bench nonetheless left a small window open.

In its order, the court said the petitioner, if so advised, could submit a letter on the administrative side to the Chief Justice of India with suggestions for judicial reforms, adding that such suggestions are always welcome.