Recently, I bought a beautifully produced book titled ‘Mother Mary Comes to Me’ by Arundhati Roy. The cover is undeniably striking: A lush red fabric with a sleeve featuring a black-and-white photograph of Roy holding a hand-rolled cigarette. It is bold and artistic.

I had barely placed the book on my table when our Advertising Manager walked in. One glance at the cover and she made a prophecy that felt oddly specific: “The publisher is going to face frivolous cases.”

Seeing my surprise, she added matter-of-factly, “It’s the smoking. Someone will file a case. Either for publicity or to extract money.”

I laughed it off. A month later, her words came true.

An advocate named Rajasimhan appeared before a Supreme Court Bench, indignant that Roy’s book cover depicted her smoking without the statutory “Smoking Kills” warning.

According to him, this supposedly violated the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003.

It might have been dramatic, except for one inconvenient fact. The warning was present; it was printed clearly on the very same sleeve.

This was not his first attempt. He had already lost in the Kerala High Court, but he still escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while dismissing the petition, asked the advocate, “What can be your problem? Is it only to get publicity?”

The uncomfortable answer, milords, is yes. The uncomfortable truth, milords, is that our Courts have allowed this habit to flourish.

For decades, publicity seekers and professional litigants have used the judiciary as a stage and an instrument to delay justice, harass opponents, blackmail adversaries or simply secure their fifteen minutes of fame.

Far too many Public Interest Litigations (PILs) today are less about public interest and more about personal interest.

It is time the judiciary confronted this menace. The solution is simple: Stop admitting frivolous petitions and penalise those who file them.

Consider some of the PILs that have actually entered our Courts: A man claimed Priyanka Gandhi was secretly married to him. A petitioner demanded the prosecution of Shah Rukh Khan for briefly holding the national flag upside down.

Then, the time when 22 criminal cases were filed across India against actor Khushboo merely because she spoke about premarital sex and advised young people to be safe. 

Property disputes are no less notorious. Decades after a legitimate sale, long-lost relatives or opportunistic heirs emerge to claim ownership, armed with illegible paperwork and a lawyer. The goal is rarely justice. It is negotiation, settlement or outright blackmail.

Rejecting frivolous petitions is not merely a procedural duty; it is a moral obligation. Every absurd PIL admitted delays a legitimate case. Every hour wasted is justice denied to someone who genuinely needs the Court’s attention.

So the real question is: Why are judges admitting such cases at all? And a deeper, more troubling question follows…

If a judge is willing to entertain petitions that are so clearly a waste of judicial time, can such a judge be considered wise, rational or intellectually equipped to deliver justice? If not, should such judges remain on the Bench?

These are uncomfortable questions, but they must be asked.

In 2021, Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar warned that frivolous cases filed with mischievous intent were clogging the judicial system. But warnings alone solve nothing. As long as judges admit bizarre petitions, what hope does the ordinary citizen have?

To understand just how deep the rot can go, consider a disturbing incident from Gujarat              in 2004.

A journalist investigating the alleged collusion between businessmen, the Police and the judiciary attempted an extraordinary sting.

He bribed a metropolitan magistrate in Ahmedabad and managed to get a bailable warrant issued… not against a politician or a businessman but against the then President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam !

To prove his point further, he obtained similar warrants against the Chief Justice of India, Justice V.N. Khare and the then-sitting Supreme Court Judge, Justice B.P. Singh ! The price for these warrants? Just Rs. 40,000 !

A horrified CJI Khare remarked, “If this is the state of affairs, only God knows what will  happen to the country.”

Well, milord, God knows and so do we. Nothing will happen, because nothing happened to that magistrate. And when wrongdoing goes unpunished, the rot festers.

Today, Courts are increasingly viewed not as temples of justice but as instruments of intimidation. A place to drag opponents, delay outcomes and deny justice. Much of this stagnation stems from frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Perhaps it is time for India to introduce real consequences for those who weaponise the Courts. Make people who file false or malicious cases pay compensation to their victims, be it false, property ownership, dowry or rape case. Make habitual litigants face jail time for wasting judicial resources.

As long as vexatious litigants see our Courts as instruments to use for profiteering and publicity, justice in India will continue to wither away somewhere between harsh “next hearing” and a casual “case adjourned.”

If this continues, the crisis of credibility in the Indian judiciary will only continue to deepen.

e-mail: [email protected]