The Supreme Court on September 16 dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami raising concerns about fake and forged medical degrees in the country. The petitioner, appearing in person, had sought the auditing of medical regulations and the constitution of an expert committee to examine the issue. The bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the order after hearing the submissions.
During the proceedings, Justice Narasimha expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner's pattern of filing public interest litigations. He remarked that the advocate files one PIL every week and questioned the nature of such petitions being drafted. The judge stated, 'You file one PIL per week. What kind of petitions do you drafting? You have made it a factory. That's what, every week you file writ petition. You draft the moment you see news. Look at your prayers. Do you ever apply your mind?'
Justice Narasimha further inquired whether the petitioner files such PILs for the purpose of advertisement or popularity, observing that it appears to be done merely because it is easy to file a writ petition and gain publicity. He advised, 'Why do you do such things just because it's easy to file a writ petition and anybody can file and get publicity? Just don't pile us with petitions like this routinely.'
The petitioner attempted to defend the maintainability of the plea by asserting that the issue raised important questions and cited statistics claiming that out of every four doctors, at least one holds a fake or forged degree. Despite this submission, the bench remained unconvinced and proceeded to dismiss the petition.
The Court's remarks underscore its concern over the misuse of public interest litigation as a tool for routine publicity rather than genuine grievance redressal. The judgment serves as a reminder that while PIL remains an important judicial mechanism for addressing systemic issues, it must not be employed as a habitual practice without due application of mind or substantive justification. The bench emphasized that frequent filings lacking depth or sincerity burden the judicial process and detract from the efficacy of legitimate public interest matters.
The dismissal in NARENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 849/2026 reflects the Court's intent to uphold the sanctity of public interest litigation by discouraging frivolous or repetitious filings. The observations made by Justice Narasimha and Justice Aradhe signal a judicial stance against the mechanised or perfunctory use of PILs, particularly when driven by external motivations such as media attention or personal visibility rather than a bona fide effort to address public wrongs.
The order does not preclude the petitioner from raising legitimate concerns in the future, provided they are backed by adequate research, reflection, and a genuine public interest motive. However, the Court made it clear that habitual filing without meaningful engagement with the subject matter will not be entertained and may invite similar cautions.
The judgment reinforces the principle that access to justice through PIL must be exercised responsibly, with due regard for judicial time and resources. It also highlights the Court's willingness to intervene when the mechanism appears to be abused, even if the underlying issue may have prima facie merit.