The Supreme Court recently advised a young lawyer appearing as a party-in-person to exercise greater caution before filing petitions concerning broad policy matters, stressing that the legal profession carries significant responsibility.
A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a writ petition filed by the advocate seeking an increase in the retirement age of teachers.
At the outset, Justice Narasimha questioned the advocate about her locus in challenging a matter that primarily involved a state policy decision. When she clarified that she was appearing as a party-in-person, the judge asked her to consider whether such issues ought to be brought before the Court by practising lawyers and whether she had given sufficient thought to the implications of the petition.
The judge observed that litigation cannot be undertaken merely on the basis of something read in the media and then converted into a public interest litigation.
Observing that legal practice entails heavy responsibility, Justice Narasimha highlighted that extending the retirement age of teachers past 65 years remains a larger policy issue rather than a matter for public interest litigation.
He further told the advocate that young lawyers represent the future of the legal profession and the nation, and therefore need to be conscious of the cases they bring before constitutional courts.
The judge also highlighted the mounting workload of courts and asked the advocate to consider whether a petition would actually benefit anyone before invoking the Court’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that public interest litigation is intended to address genuine issues affecting the public at large and cannot become a substitute for ordinary litigation or a platform for pursuing matters without a sufficient legal or public-interest basis.
The Court has also cautioned against petitions that seek judicial intervention in matters involving policy choices, particularly where the issue requires assessment of competing social, administrative or economic considerations falling primarily within the domain of the legislature or executive.
The bench ultimately dismissed the writ petition on merits.
The post Litigation comes with huge responsibility: Supreme Court Justice Narasimha advises young lawyer appearing as a party-in-person appeared first on India Legal.