08-April-2024-Special-Article

MADURAI BENCH CAN ALSO HEAR PIL PETITIONS RELATING TO PAN-STATE MATTERS, RULES MADRAS HIGH COURT 

The Madras High Court, principal seat, recently issued a significant ruling reinstating the authority of the Madurai Bench to adjudicate on all types of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), not just those limited to the 13 districts under its jurisdiction but also those concerning the entire state. 

Madras Court’s Ruling: 

Background: 

• A previous judgement emphasized filing PILs concerning temple interests statewide at the principal seat, not the Madurai Bench. 

Recent Judgement: 

• The Madurai Bench’s rights to hear all types of PILs, including statewide issues, have been restored. 
• The court highlighted the impracticality of a blanket order mandating all pan-state matters be filed only at the principal seat. 

Legal Basis: 

• The court referenced the 2004 presidential notification establishing the Madurai Bench, which didn’t impose restrictions. 
• The 2012 B. Stalin versus Registrar full Bench ruling affirmed the Chief Justice’s transfer authority but did not limit PIL types for the Madurai Bench. 

Establishment of High Court and Permanent Benches: 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 214 mandates a High Court for each state. 
• Section 51 of the States’ Reorganisation Act, 1956 allows for benches away from the principal seat. 

Justice Jaswant Singh Commission (1981-83): 

• Appointed to consider High Court Bench demands in Western Uttar Pradesh. 
• Recommendations included regional characteristics, population, infrastructure, and legal talent. 

Supreme Court’s Stance: 

• Decisions should be rational, not based on emotions or parochial considerations. 

• Consensus among State Government, Chief Justice, and Governor is essential for bench establishment. 

Union Government’s Role: 

• Bench proposals are considered after complete submissions from the State Government. 
• The State bears the High Court and Bench expenses. 
• The Chief Justice oversees the Bench administration and assigns judges as required. 

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): 

Origins: 

• Developed in the USA during the 1960s. In India, it evolved through judicial activism, with Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati being pioneers. 

Relaxation of ‘locus standi’: 

• Traditionally, only affected individuals could approach the court. PIL relaxed this rule. 

Definition by Supreme Court: 

• PIL is a legal action for enforcing public or general interest affecting the public or a community’s legal rights or liabilities. 

Scope of PIL: 

• Matters entertained include bonded labour, child neglect, non-payment of minimum wages, atrocities on women, and environmental pollution. 

Conclusion: 

This ruling by the Madras High Court underscores the evolving nature of PILs and the importance of accessibility and jurisdiction in public interest matters.  

It reinforces the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the broader public interest and ensuring justice is accessible across all regions. 

Mains Question: 

1. Discuss the recent Madras High Court ruling reinstating the Madurai Bench’s authority to adjudicate on all types of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and its implications for the accessibility and jurisdiction of PILs in India. (150 WORDS)