Today, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the misuse of public interest litigation (PIL) as a means to seek relief that has been denied through other legal avenues and jurisdictions.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan noted that this misuse of public interest litigation was consuming time that High Courts could otherwise allocate to resolving long-pending appeals.

"The problem is that this PIL jurisdiction is being mischievously invoked in various High Courts now to settle personal scores. Somebody goes in PIL when you cannot succeed in civil courts or anywhere and gets orders. And whole day instead of deciding criminal appeals pending or civil appeals which are pending for decades, they are issuing absurd directions in PILs," Justice Kant remarked.

The Bench made this oral remark while expressing concern over demolitions conducted on certain properties in the Patna Sadar area. These demolitions were executed following a March 18 Patna High Court order on a PIL requesting the removal of allegedly unauthorized constructions. Despite the Supreme Court's March 22 directive to maintain the status quo until the High Court resolved the matter, which involved a series of petitions, the demolitions proceeded on March 23-24.

The Supreme Court had effectively stayed the demolitions on March 22. Despite this, the State proceeded with the demolitions, citing the March 18 High Court order, and subsequently filed a compliance report with the High Court. Today, the Supreme Court condemned this action.

The High Court was instructed to hear and resolve the remaining related cases based on their own merits and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the March 18 judgment on the PIL petition. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that those affected by the March 23-24 demolitions are entitled to compensation for property damage, even if the constructions are ultimately deemed unauthorized.

This compensation is to be recovered from the Bihar government, the Patna Municipal Corporation, and the officials responsible for the demolition. The Supreme Court emphasized that this order is specific to the unique facts and circumstances of the case, particularly due to the willful disobedience of earlier orders.

Advocate Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam appeared for the petitioners who approached the Supreme Court for protection from demolition.

Standing Counsel Manish Kumar represented the State of Bihar.