LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation
Case Name: Suresh Srivastava & Ors. vs. Sundeep Bhutoria
Judgment Date: March 21, 2022
Date of the Judgment: March 21, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 184
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Can a person who is already in a dispute with another party be appointed to assist the court as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that arises from the same dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a recent judgment, clarifying the procedure for PILs. The Court held that a disputant cannot be assigned the role of an amicus curiae in a PIL that arises from the same matter. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case originated from a dispute between Suresh Srivastava and others (the appellants) and Sundeep Bhutoria (the respondent). This dispute was already the subject of a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 554 of 2019) pending in the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. During the proceedings of a related matter before the High Court of Delhi, the High Court, after disposing of the main matter, directed the registration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Indian Federation of United Nations Association. The High Court also permitted the respondent, Sundeep Bhutoria, to assist the Court in the PIL, effectively assigning him the role of an amicus curiae.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019 | Civil Suit No. 554 of 2019 filed in the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, regarding a dispute between Suresh Srivastava & Ors. and Sundeep Bhutoria. |
| 17.02.2022 | The High Court of Delhi, while disposing of LPA No. 126 of 2022, directs the registration of a PIL concerning the Indian Federation of United Nations Association and allows Sundeep Bhutoria to assist the court. |
| 21.03.2022 | The Supreme Court disposes of the appeal filed by Suresh Srivastava & Ors., annulling the part of the High Court order that appointed Sundeep Bhutoria as amicus curiae. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, after disposing of LPA No. 126 of 2022, found it appropriate to direct the registration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Indian Federation of United Nations Association. The High Court also permitted Sundeep Bhutoria, the respondent in the present appeal, to assist the Court in the PIL. This order was challenged by Suresh Srivastava and others before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspects of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the role of an amicus curiae. There are no specific sections of any statute discussed in the judgment. However, the judgment emphasizes the non-adversarial nature of PILs and the need for an impartial amicus curiae.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants, represented by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, argued that the dispute between them and the respondent was already pending in a civil suit.
- They contended that all relevant facts and factors requiring clarification should be presented before the High Court.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The respondent, represented by Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, had brought certain facts to the notice of the High Court, leading to the registration of the PIL.
- The respondent was also permitted by the High Court to assist the court.
Court’s Observations:
- The Supreme Court noted that the respondent was a disputant in a civil suit against the appellants.
- The Court observed that assigning the role of amicus curiae to the respondent was incompatible with the requirements of a PIL, which should be non-adversarial.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:
- Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a party to a dispute can be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute. | The Court held that it is not compatible with the requirements of a PIL. The Court annulled the part of the High Court order that permitted the respondent to act as an amicus curiae, emphasizing the non-adversarial nature of PILs. |
Authorities
No specific cases or books were cited by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court’s decision was primarily based on the general principles governing Public Interest Litigation and the role of an amicus curiae.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that dispute is pending in civil court. | The Court acknowledged the pending civil suit but did not directly address it, instead focusing on the PIL procedure. |
| Respondent’s submission that he brought facts to the notice of the court and was permitted to assist the court. | The Court annulled the part of the High Court’s order that allowed the respondent to assist the court, stating it was incompatible with PIL requirements. |
The Supreme Court did not cite any authorities in this judgment. The court’s reasoning is based on the principle that a PIL is a non-adversarial litigation and that an amicus curiae should be impartial.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should be non-adversarial. The Court emphasized that the role of an amicus curiae is to assist the court impartially, and this role cannot be assigned to a party who is already involved in a dispute related to the PIL.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Non-adversarial nature of PIL | 60% |
| Impartiality of amicus curiae | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
High Court directs registration of PIL and appoints disputant as amicus curiae.
Supreme Court observes PIL should be non-adversarial.
Supreme Court notes amicus curiae must be impartial.
Supreme Court annuls High Court’s order appointing disputant as amicus curiae.
The Court’s reasoning is clear that a person who is a party to a dispute cannot be an amicus curiae in a PIL arising from the same dispute. The court held that this is incompatible with the requirements of a PIL. The court stated, “the observations made in paragraph 17 of the order impugned, where the High Court has permitted the respondent to assist the Court and thereby has practically assigned him the role of an amicus, do not appear compatible with the requirements of a PIL.” The Court further clarified, “when the High Court has registered the matter as a PIL, it ought to be dealt with as a non-adversarial litigation.” The court also said, “we leave the matter open to be dealt with as a PIL; and all the relevant aspects of the matter are left open for the examination by the High Court with the assistance of amicus curiae, who has also been appointed in terms of paragraph 18 of the order impugned.”
Key Takeaways
- A party to a dispute cannot be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute.
- Public Interest Litigations should be non-adversarial in nature.
- Amicus curiae must be impartial and not have any conflict of interest.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the High Court should deal with the PIL as a non-adversarial litigation and examine all relevant aspects of the matter with the assistance of an amicus curiae, who was already appointed by the High Court in terms of paragraph 18 of the impugned order.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies the procedural aspect of Public Interest Litigation, specifically regarding the role of an amicus curiae. It reinforces the principle that PILs should be non-adversarial and that an amicus curiae must be impartial. This ruling prevents a party to a dispute from influencing the PIL process by acting as an amicus curiae.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh Srivastava vs. Sundeep Bhutoria clarifies that a party to a dispute cannot be appointed as an amicus curiae in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arising from the same dispute. This decision ensures that PILs remain non-adversarial and that the amicus curiae is impartial, thus upholding the integrity of the PIL process.