On Monday, the Bombay High Court rejected a PIL that called for a reduction in perks and salaries of Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Maharashtra. The court referred to a prior judgment, asserting that such matters are considered policy decisions beyond the purview of the judiciary.

Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S. Doctor, comprising a division bench, criticized the petition during the proceedings. They noted that the petition was replete with generalized and unfavorable statements directed at all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

The petitioners sought several remedies, such as reducing the salaries of Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Maharashtra to match the average levels of other states, lowering the perks provided to MLAs, and prohibiting salaries and perks for MLAs with assets exceeding Rs. 5 crores or those falling in the highest tax slab. Additionally, the petition urged the court to appoint a Judicial Commission to assess the threat perception of state VIPs and to annul amendments related to MLAs' salaries.

The court observed that Bhagvanji Raiyani, one of the petitioners, did not adequately respond to the court's inquiry regarding the maintainability of the petition. Instead, Raiyani chose to read the entire petition despite the court's emphasis on legal submissions. 

The court determined that the petition lacked merit entirely. It underscored that the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2016, regulating the salaries and allowances of MLAs, had previously been contested and dismissed in the case of Sandeep Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The court reiterated that the dismissal was based on the understanding that such matters constitute policy decisions beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

The court reiterated its previous judgment, affirming that determinations regarding the salaries of MLAs were within the realm of policy and fell under the legislative authority. It stressed that the petition lacked any legal foundation to substantiate its requested reliefs. The court further observed that the petitioner should present legal arguments rather than expressing personal opinions.

The court emphasized that by raising a constitutional challenge, the petitioner was obligated to establish two key points: first, that the legislature lacked the authority to enact the amendments, and second, that the amendments violated specific constitutional provisions. The court expressed disapproval, noting a complete absence of discussion on either of these aspects in the petition. It strongly criticized the filing and presentation of the petition for failing to address these fundamental legal considerations.

The court also alluded to a prior Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by the same petitioner, which had sought a code of conduct for elected representatives. In dismissing that PIL, the court had admonished Raiyani for consistently submitting petitions that were poorly drafted and haphazardly presented, leading to an unnecessary drain on valuable judicial time and resources.

The court had expressed apprehension regarding the misuse of public interest litigation for the purpose of undermining public offices. It underscored the vital role played by elected representatives in the effective functioning of the government.

Emphasizing the significance of upholding respect and professionalism in legal pleadings, the court conveyed that such standards should be maintained irrespective of the case's nature or the parties involved.

The court had underscored the importance of caution and thoroughness in the preparation and presentation of petitions before the court. It urged petitioners to ensure that their submissions are well-founded, backed by sufficient research, and include compelling arguments.

The court went on to encourage the petitioner to seek legal assistance for a better understanding of pertinent legal principles, administrative and constitutional law, and the scope of writ jurisdiction. It emphasized that frivolous or inadequately presented Public Interest Litigations (PILs) impede the timely resolution of other legitimate and pressing cases.