Summary
The appellants challenged directions registering a PIL concerning the Indian Federation of United Nations Association after disposal of an appeal. The Court declined to interfere with registration at this stage, leaving factual explanations and objections for the High Court. It annulled the direction effectively assigning an amicus role to the respondent, who was himself a disputant, while preserving assistance by the separately appointed amicus and leaving all merits open.
Issues
- Whether registration of the PIL warranted interference at this stage.
- Whether a party in an existing dispute could be assigned a role effectively equivalent to amicus in the PIL.
Held
- The High Court’s prima facie reasons did not warrant interference with registration of the PIL at this stage. The appellants could present their explanations, relevant facts and objections before that court. (¶ 2-3)
- The PIL was to proceed as non-adversarial litigation. Assigning the respondent, who was a disputant against the appellants, a role effectively equivalent to amicus was incompatible with that requirement in these circumstances. (¶ 4-5)
- Only the direction granting that role was annulled. Examination of the PIL remained open with assistance from the amicus separately appointed by the High Court, and no view was expressed on the merits. (¶ 6-8)
Result
Appeal disposed of with paragraph 17 of the High Court order annulled. The PIL could proceed with the separately appointed amicus; the appellants’ submissions and all merits remained open before the High Court.