Public Interest Litigation Can't Be Entertained When It Raises Personal Grievances: Supreme Court

One of the prayers in the petition sought a direction to constitute a committee to oversee the shortcomings in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the private hospital of the petitioner.

Taking note of the same, CJI DY Chandrachud remarked, “People who have personal grievances cannot parade around by filing these PILs....How can a PIL be filed? He's personally involved in the matter. His last prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus to constitute a Committee to examine the irregularities in the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings pertaining to Frontier Lifeline Private Limited..why should we entertain a writ petition? He's directly personally involved. This is not a PIL at all..”

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, explained that the petitioner seeks to use his case as an example in the larger public interest. He reads the main prayers that the PIL sought relief in as follows :

1. Direction to the Centre to formulate guidelines/scheme for grant of sanctions/approval/clearances for speedy and effective implementation of time-sensitive medical research, to secure the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950;
2. Direction to the Centre to take necessary steps to give effect to clause 2.3.3 of the National Health Policy, 2017 for facilitating growth of Private Medical Research Institutions, and promotion of life-saving medical technologies for the attainment of Public Health Goals;

CJI then drew Bhushan's attention towards prayer D which read as :

“ Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 6 to constitute a Committee to examine the irregularities in the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings pertaining to Frontier Lifeline Private Limited initiated pursuant to the order of the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 2.08.2018 in CP/698/1B/CB/2017.”

Expressing disappointment of the above nature of the prayer the CJI remarked that personal interests cannot be furthered under the garb of PILs.

Mr Bhushan stressed that the PIL only endeavours to have the NITIAYOG's recommendations for streamlining medical research in India be implemented by the direction of the Apex Court. He said, ' The petitioner is only using his case to illustrate as to what happens, he's not seeking relief. He's wanting that at least in future this should be facilitated. Why is India lagging behind in research and development? Because of these kinds of problems. Regulatory approvals take a very long time, banks treat medical research loan facility as commercial loans given to real estate companies etc. Recommendations of NITIAYOG which are salutary in nature should be implemented, that's all that I am seeking”

CJI dismissed the PIL, remarking that “ You have crossed the threshold, merely because he comes here and says it's an important public interest issue, we are not bound to interfere...this is the kind of PILs we are getting now”

As a parting statement, Bhushan expressed, “It is one thing for your lordships to decline a petition under Article 32, that's your Lordships discretion. The other thing is can a person who has personal experience in dealing with this issue of regulatory clearance etc, who has suffered the brunt of this, can he not approach the Court by way of a PIL for streamlining the process?”

Being disinclined to entertain the case any further, the Court in its order observed-

“ The establishment of the petitioner has been the subject matter of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Liquidation proceedings are going on. In Special Leave Petition Diary No 40902 of 2023 (K.M. Cherian Vs State Bank of India & Ors), the petitioner sought to challenge an order dated 9 February 2019 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which, in turn, had upheld an order of the National Company Law Tribunal dated 2 August 2018 admitting an application filed by the financial creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

The above narration will clearly indicate that what is now preferred as a petition, which was purportedly filed in the public interest, is, in fact, relatable to the petitioner's specific grievance in regard to proceedings of insolvency against FLPL.

We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain a petition purportedly in the public interest on the above ground. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

The Petitioner is a renowned heart surgeon and Padma Shri awardee who performed India's first coronary artery bypass surgery for congenital heart disease and also the first heart transplant surgery. His establishment namely 'Frontier Lifeline Private Limited ('FLPL')', a cardiac specialty hospital set up in 2003 in Tamil Nadu is presently undergoing liquidation proceedings under the IBC 2016.

Earlier, he had filed an SLP under Article 136 challenging the NCLAT & NCLT order wherein the lower courts have admitted an application filed by one of the financial creditors for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process against FLPL. The said SLP was allowed to be withdrawn by the Court.

Case Details: KM Cherian v. UOI & Others Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 37/2024