PIL Challenging Constitutional Provisions
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare several constitutional provisions of the Indian Constitution as unconstitutional. The PIL, filed by Dr. S.N. Kundra, a petitioner-in-person, also contested the validity of Section 149 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalises the act of gathering arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India.
The bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, heard the petition and dismissed it, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner. The amount is to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within one week.
Dr. Kundra challenged the constitutional validity of several key Articles. This is including Articles 52, 53, 75(4), 77, 102(2), 164(3), 191(2), 246, 361, and 368. These provisions deal with the roles and powers of the President of India. The conduct of government business, disqualification of MPs/MLAs. Also, the legislative authority of Parliament and State Legislatures, and the procedure for amending the Constitution, among others.
The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and declined to entertain it, leading to its dismissal with costs.
Purpose of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows citizens to seek justice for public issues. Courts use PILs to address human rights violations, environmental concerns, and government accountability.
PIL empowers marginalized communities by giving them access to legal remedies. It ensures that authorities follow laws and uphold constitutional rights. Social activists and NGOs often file PILs to drive policy changes.
The judiciary accepts PILs even from individuals not directly affected. This approach promotes justice and strengthens democracy. By addressing public concerns, PILs help create a more transparent and fair society.
