Mathews J. Nedumpara
98205 35428
14th March 2026

Shri I.C. Rao
Vice Admiral (Retd.)
Mumbai.

Dear and most respected Rao Sab,
🙏

I am a direct beneficiary of the PIL which you have instituted in the Bombay High Court, and I have no words to thank you for your selfless service to society. You are a noble soul—a model worthy of adulation and emulation by one and all.

Here, the PIL has brought immense benefit. Otherwise, it was difficult even to breathe because of the stench coming from decaying fish waste.

But the other side of the coin is that the court’s time is being hijacked by lawyers and activists on issues that are not justiciable—often purely for name and fame.

For instance, in the Sabarimala case: No women in Kerala wanted the temple to be opened to women of menstruating age. It is their faith that the deity is a brahmachari and does not welcome the presence of young women. To our mind, that faith may appear irrational. But all faith, irrespective of religion, is often blind and contrary to reason. The judgment of the court holding that the practice violated Article 14 brought unthinkable turmoil and chaos.

Now a nine-judge Bench is being constituted to hear the Review Petition—a windfall for the creamy layer of lawyers to gain name, fame, and money.
Judges, too, are fallible mortals. A five-judge Bench of Justices Chandrachud and Dipak Misra heard it in a hurry because Justice Misra was due to retire shortly and wanted to go down in the annals of history as a champion of women’s rights.

I can cite any number of similar cases. Prashant Bhushan—the very centre of PILs—and many of his ilk have flourished entirely on PILs.

Judges entertain them because it empowers them even above Parliament. The government of the day is at their mercy. Otherwise, can you imagine a Prime Minister of Modi’s stature going to the residence of Justice Chandrachud for aarti?

Today’s PILs are in the realm of governance. Can the court run the government? Obviously not. Yet in PILs, that is exactly what is sought: governance by the court in substitution of elected representatives.
It is unacceptable as a constitutional principle and impossible in practice. That is why I oppose it. If the court substitutes itself for the government, who will do the courts’ work? I have been trying to get a case where I myself am the respondent—pending since 2013—heard, but that is not happening. A criminal case against a client of mine for FERA violation has been pending for more than 25 years.

It is a crime for the courts to allow criminal appeals to remain pending for decades while the accused languish in jail till death. The appeal simply abates with the death of the man.
The PIL instituted by you is not a PIL at all.

Veteran Rao Sab and I stay in the very same Harbour Heights Apartments in South Bombay. We are entitled to compel the authorities to discharge their statutory duty by seeking a writ of mandamus. Here, the word “PIL” is a misnomer.

With regards,
Yours Sincerely.

Mathews J. Nedumpara