[ad_1]
88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while
entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of
Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit
of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to court due to some
disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the
courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a
weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the
Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally
aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a
court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to
be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the
downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21
and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the court.”
[ad_2]
Source link