New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking sweeping judicial reforms, observing that the petition appeared to be a “publicity interest litigation” rather than a genuine attempt at systemic improvement.
The plea had sought a direction mandating that every court in the country decide cases within a fixed period of one year. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi questioned the feasibility of issuing such a blanket directive.
The petition was filed by Kamlesh Tripathi, who argued the matter in person. During the hearing, Tripathi requested permission to present his arguments in Hindi, which the court allowed. However, the Bench expressed concern over the intent and practicality of the plea.
Responding to the petitioner’s claim that he wanted to bring change to the judicial system, the Chief Justice remarked that filing such a PIL was not the appropriate way to seek reforms. He suggested that constructive suggestions could instead be submitted through a formal letter on the administrative side.
The court also took exception to what it described as attempts to use judicial proceedings for publicity. The Chief Justice cautioned against filing petitions merely to gain attention, stating that the court should not be treated as a platform for addressing cameras stationed outside.
Questioning the logistical viability of the demand, the Bench asked how it would be possible for every court to conclude cases within a year, given the existing infrastructure and caseload.
Dismissing the plea, the court clarified that while meaningful suggestions for judicial reform are always welcome, they must be routed appropriately and responsibly. The Bench noted that the petitioner, if so advised, may submit recommendations directly to the Chief Justice through administrative channels.
