Chandigarh, June 20: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that Public Interest Litigations (PILs) cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass statutory remedies already available under existing laws. The court made it clear that invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction through a PIL is “inappropriate and impermissible” when robust legal mechanisms are in place.
The ruling came from a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, while hearing a petition seeking action against online opinion-trading and betting platforms. The petitioner had urged the court to restrain such platforms from advertising or promoting gambling activities, alleging violations under the Public Gambling Act and other laws.
“Where a robust and adequate statutory framework already subsists, providing efficacious mechanisms and prescribed procedures for the redressal of a particular grievance, the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by way of a PIL… is manifestly inappropriate and, indeed, impermissible,” the Bench stated in its order.
The court pointed to the existence of The Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025, and other applicable mechanisms, and held that the petitioner should first approach the appropriate authorities under the relevant laws.
The PIL was filed by Advocate Anuj Malik, represented by senior advocate and former Punjab Advocate General Atul Nanda, along with Rameeza Hakim, seeking “immediate and appropriate action” against betting and wagering promotions by various digital platforms.
While recognising the historical and transformative role of PILs, the Bench cautioned against their misuse. “The very genesis of Public Interest Litigation… has, in contemporary jurisdiction, assumed an unparalleled salience. It serves an indispensable instrument for catalysing profound societal transformations,” the court noted. However, it added that such jurisdiction must be exercised with caution and judicial self-restraint, especially when specific remedies are already prescribed by law.
“Constitutional courts derive their authority in PIL matters from broad writ jurisdiction,” the Bench observed. “Yet, when a statutory redress mechanism exists, there arises no occasion for this Court to entertain the petition.”
In disposing of the matter, the court allowed the petitioner to pursue the grievance through existing legal channels under the Haryana Prevention of Public Gambling Act, 2025 and other relevant provisions.
