PIL Is Not A Weapon For Settling Personal Scores: Supreme Court Rebukes Abuse of Public Interest Litigation In Santiniketan Demolition Case

“Selective invocation of PIL jurisdiction to target one construction while ignoring similar structures — including those owned by the petitioners themselves — exposes the mala fides of the litigation.” – Supreme Court

In a powerful affirmation of the sanctity and purpose of Public Interest Litigation, the Supreme Court condemned the misuse of PIL jurisdiction for ulterior motives, calling out the petitioners for targeting a private builder while concealing their own encroachments within the same residential tract. The Court not only dismissed the PIL and set aside the Calcutta High Court’s demolition order, but also imposed ₹1,00,000 as costs on the PIL petitioners for their lack of bona fides.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice Vikram Nath, minced no words: “Public interest jurisdiction is not meant to settle private scores. The cloak of public interest cannot be used to serve private grievances or to selectively target individuals.”

“When The Petitioners Themselves Own Houses In The Same Area, Their Silence On That Fact Is Suppression”: Court Warns Against Misuse Of PIL

The litigation originated in 2012 when seven individuals filed a PIL before the Calcutta High Court alleging that Aarsuday Projects had illegally constructed a residential building on so-called “khoai” land near Visva-Bharati University in Santiniketan. They sought demolition of the building, citing violation of ecological norms and the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India.

However, the Supreme Court found that these very petitioners were owners of residential structures on plots situated within the same 28.12-acre tract — some directly adjacent to the disputed construction.

The Court held, “It is now evident from the record that Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (PIL petitioners) own residential houses within the same land parcel as Aarsuday Projects. Their omission to disclose this fact in the PIL amounts to suppression of material information.”

“Targeting One Builder While Overlooking Dozens Of Similar Constructions Smacks Of Personal Bias”: Apex Court On Unequal Application of PIL

The Court took strong exception to the fact that the PIL singled out Aarsuday Projects for demolition, while not questioning the legality of dozens of similar constructions in the area—including those owned by the petitioners.

“Photographs and site plans placed on record reveal that the petitioners’ own homes stand directly opposite the disputed building, separated merely by a road. It defies logic that ‘khoai’ formations selectively exist only on the developer’s plot while the rest of the land is somehow exempt,” the Court noted, calling this argument “unscientific, untenable, and tainted with malice.”

The Court warned that selective invocation of environmental causes against only one party, without seeking comprehensive enforcement across the locality, indicates a misuse of PIL for personal vendetta.

“Public Interest Cannot Be Built On Suppression And Dishonesty”: SC Clarifies Burden of Proof In PIL Cases

The judgment also laid down a key principle on the burden of proof in public interest litigations.

“The onus is on the PIL petitioners to establish illegality with cogent, credible and contemporaneous material. Where the petition rests on disputed facts, subjective perceptions, and assumptions, courts must exercise extreme caution,” the Court cautioned.

The Bench noted that no scientific evidence, land classification report, or environmental study was ever produced to prove that the developer’s plot was “khoai” land. The Court also observed that the High Court’s reliance on ambiguous inspection reports, lacking technical foundation, was unjustified in law.

“We Have No Hesitation In Holding That This Was A Misuse Of Judicial Process”: SC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

In a rare move, the Court ordered the PIL petitioners to pay ₹1,00,000 as costs to the West Bengal Legal Services Authority, citing suppression of material facts, lack of bona fides, and abuse of constitutional remedy.

“This is not merely a case of a mistaken PIL. It is a calculated misuse of judicial forum under the pretense of public interest,” the Court declared.

The amount must be deposited within two months, with proof of deposit filed before the Registry of the Supreme Court. This serves as a stern precedent against misuse of PIL as a strategic litigation tool in private disputes.

Supreme Court Sends Clear Message: PIL Is A Constitutional Weapon, Not A Private Sword

This judgment reinforces the principle that PIL is not a platform to vilify, isolate, or penalise private parties in the name of public cause, unless supported by objective evidence and equal application of law.

“The power of the courts in PIL jurisdiction is not unbridled. It must be exercised judiciously, and only in cases where the cause is genuine, the material is credible, and the relief sought is consistent with public law,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2026