Misuse of PIL

HC fines ex-IA pilot for misuse of PIL

Delhi High Court has decried litigants who resort to filing PILs as a tool to settle personal scores or for publicity. Dismissing a PIL filed by a former Indian Airlines pilot claiming that unsafe landing procedure is thrust on IA pilots resulting in aircraft being flown in a hazardous manner, a division Bench of Justice Manmohan Sarin and Justice Manmohan recently slapped a cost of Rs 10,000 on him and termed it as a misuse of PIL.

‘‘The present petition is without merit and is a misuse of public interest litigation,’’ HC noted while refusing to intervene on one Captain P N Sharma’s PIL relating to the emergency landing procedure of A-320 Bogie aircraft of IA. The court added, ‘‘All the different agencies, authorities and the manufacturers have found the aircraft (A-320) airworthy and the suggestions made by the petitioner are neither feasible nor acceptable....The suggestions of the petitioner had been given due consideration by the manufacturer Airbus Industrie, who after a comprehensive evaluation of the suggestions found that these were not practically feasible.’’

HC was clear that since the landing procedure had been certified as correct and safe by the experts in the filed petition, the matter need not be pursued further. ‘‘We are of the view that the matter must rest with the finding and opinion of the above experts and not permitted to be agitated any further.’’

The petition was dismissed after the airlines convinced the judges that Sharma, who claimed to have 30 years experience of 16,000 flying hours, flying on various aircraft such as DC-3, AVRO, Boeing 737, Airbus A 320, had moved this PIL because he entertained a sense of grievance against it and its staff. The airlines stated in the court that Sharma’s ‘‘professional background has been such that he has tried to implicate his seniors who had found his job performance to be unsatisfactory.’’

Citing a Supreme Court judgement, IA reminded HC that ‘‘attractive brand name of PIL should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta.’’

Taking into account Sharma’s attitudinal problem and depression, the Bench refrained from imposing any hefty penalty on him and restricted itself to slapping a token cost of Rs 10,000 on Sharma. ‘‘In these circumstances we would give to the petitioner the benefit of doubt that it may be the action of a person who misdirected him.’’

While dealing with the case it emerged that Sharma had also filed a civil suit against IA and its top honchos and demanded a compensation of Rs 2.6 crores for cutting short his career by 10 years by ‘‘relentless harassment at work place’’. The Bench made it clear that its observations in Sharma’s PIL would have no effect on the civil suit.
With thanks from The Times of India 18 June 2008 P. 7Delhi
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd

For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in

Delhi HC to take up PIL on gay rights

Mumbai: In a tony neighbourhood in Andheri, Rahul, a 25-year-old IT professional, shares an apartment with Brian (27), who works at a multinational bank. For the last two years, their landlord and neighbours know them as perfect roommates, but to friends and a few family members they are a gay couple.

In a country where homosexual acts are punishable with life imprisonment, few like Rahul and Brian manage to make a home for themselves. A public interest litigation being heard in Delhi HC this week seeking to decriminalise homosexuality is being watched with bated breaths by the lesbian and gay community. ‘

‘Living with one’s partner is taken for granted by my straight friends, but I have to make sure who I tell about our relationship,’’ said Rahul, the more outspoken one who has also told his family about himself. Brian is still to decide what to tell his parents.

‘‘The Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and right to health, but the law treats gay people as criminals whose rights can be abrogated,’’ said Lesley Esteves, a lesbian activist and spokesperson for Voices Against 377 a coalition of LGBT, women’s and human rights activists. Voices is one of the organisations that has filed an intervention application in the high court seeking a ‘‘reading down’’ of the law.

Section 377 says ‘‘whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either up to 10 years or life’’. Enacted in 1860, it was more stringent than anti-sodomy laws that existed in English law of the time.

The section says, ‘‘Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary for the offence. It includes a whole range of offences from mutual masturbation, to fellatio and anal sex.’’ The Law Commission in 2001 had recommended a repeal of Section 377, a move backed by the Union ministry of family and child welfare in 2006. The law, however, remains.

Gay activist and founder of NGO Humsafar Ashok Row Kavi explains that the PIL does not seek a repeal of Section 377. ‘‘The court has been urged to read down Section 377, so as to decriminalise homosexuality,’’ said Kavi, adding that more than legal repercussions, it is the social consequences that makes the law draconian.

The Times of India 20 May 2008 P. 16 Delhi
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in