PIL is not domain for busy bodies: Meghalaya HC

Syllad | The Rising MeghalayaMarch 25, 2025

The Meghalaya High Court on Tuesday said that public interest litigation is not the domain for busy bodies.

The bench comprising Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh has sounded a note of caution with regards to entertaining public interest litigation while disposing of a PIL filed by one Amit R. Marak complaining that the boundary wall of the P.A. Sangma Integrated Sports Complex at Tura, West Garo Hills is breaking down again.

Earlier, the court had disposed of two such PILs filed on the same issue related to the collapse of the boundary wall.

Both the State representing by AH Kharwanlang Addl Sr GA and Dr N Mozika, learned DSGI representing the contractor have made common submissions that first of all the boundary wall which broke down was temporary in nature. There was severe rain and flooding with water rushing towards the temporary structure damaging it more than once but it was repaired. Now, there is a permanent boundary wall. There is no problem in the stadium or in the sports complex.

However, the counsel for the petitioner says that this work was done without proper technical evaluation and decision.

After hearing their submission, the bench said “We sound a note of caution with regard to entertaining public interest litigation. It is not a jurisdiction where any alleged fault or dereliction of duty or failure to act on the part of the government is to be brought to the notice of the Court. If any person is aggrieved, the proper remedy is regular litigation between the person aggrieved and the government.”

“Only if there is some grave dereliction of duty affecting the public at large and those affected by reason of lack of education or knowledge of legal rights or economic hardship or marginalisation in society are unable to approach the Court, that the Court may be approached in this jurisdiction. If every alleged act of commission or omission of the government becomes the subject-matter of public interest litigation, neither the government nor the Court can function,” it added.

Stating that PIL is also not the domain for busy bodies, the bench stated, “In this case, there is not even an injury caused to any person. There was breakdown of a temporary structure which was repaired from time to time. There is no complaint that the integrated sports complex is unable to function because of some inaction on the part of the government. Unnecessary time of the Court has been consumed by this litigation by a busy body.”

“We dispose of this public interest litigation with the expectation that the permanent wall constructed would continue to stand and that the sports complex thrives,” it stated in the order.