Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, propelled by judicial activism and notable figures like Justice P.N. Bhagwati, serves as a pivotal instrument for social justice. PIL's growth stems from legal awareness, landmark judgments, and proactive judicial measures. Despite its efficacy, concerns of misuse loom, necessitating guidelines for verification and prioritization. Uniform implementation of these guidelines and penalties for abuse are essential to uphold PIL's credibility. From addressing legislative and administrative failures to safeguarding fundamental rights and reinforcing good governance, PIL has emerged as a potent force for societal change. Its evolution reflects a delicate balance between facilitating access to justice for the marginalized and safeguarding against potential misuse, highlighting the ongoing need for vigilance and accountability within the judicial system.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is intricately tied to the concept of judicial activism, particularly within the Indian legal system. The surge of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be largely attributed to the proactive stance of the Supreme Court through judicial activism. While the PIL shares similarities with the American model designed to offer legal representation to underrepresented groups, its evolution in India is primarily attributed to the proactive stance of the judiciary, notably spearheaded by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati in the SP Gupta case where the concept of locus standi was relaxed and liberal view was taken in this regard.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is known by various names such as Social Action Litigation (SAL), Social Interest Litigation (SIL), and Class Action Litigation (CAL). It allows any concerned citizen or social organization to approach the court for the protection and enforcement of the rights of individuals or groups who may not be able to seek legal remedies themselves due to factors like poverty, ignorance, or social and economic disadvantage.

The Supreme Court has defined PIL as "a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

Dilution of principle of locus standi (i.e. earlier- only a person himself/herself, being aggrieved, could approach the courts): today a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can move the courts for redressing public injury, enforcing public duty or for protecting social and collective rights and interests.

• Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai (1976)
  • In this case, Justice Krishna Iyer emphasized the vital role of PIL in advocating for the interests of the poor and oppressed.
  • He stressed that PIL should complement traditional litigation rather than serve as a substitute.
• Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979)
  • This landmark case marked the inception of PIL, focusing on the deplorable conditions of prisons and the plight of undertrial prisoners.
  • Over 40,000 undertrial prisoners were released as a result, highlighting the emergence of the right to speedy justice as a fundamental right.
• S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981): Liberal interpretation of “locus standi”
  • Presided over by Justice P.N. Bhagawati, this case heralded a new era for PIL.
  • It established that "any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide" could invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts or Supreme Court seeking redressal for violations of legal or constitutional rights, particularly for those unable to approach the court due to social, economic, or other disabilities.
• Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar (1981): A news report on police brutality which led to blinding of inmates was suo moto taken cognizance of by the Supreme Court which order treatment of the victims and assurance of free legal aid to them.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) Justice P. N. Bhagwati allowed citizens of India to approach the court even by writing a letter as otherwise the Court is inaccessible to common man.

• Article 32 & 226: Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court & High Court respectively to enforce fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. PIL process allows public spirited citizens to approach the court on behalf of aggrieved parties under this Article.
• Article 39A: Makes the state responsible to ensure fairness in justice delivery system and provide legal aid to marginalised communities.

Largely the cases can be divided into 4 types:-

• Labour Rights: In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha supreme court cracked down on bonded labour cases. In the Asiad Workers judgment, labourers were allowed to directly approach Supreme Court if they were not being paid minimum wage.
• Consumer Rights: Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. UOI SC while dealing with issue of milk adulteration gave guidelines to ensure better implementation of Food Safety Security Act, 2006.
• Democratic Reforms: In a PIL filed by Association for Democratic Reforms, in 1991, SC required disclosure of criminal background of electoral candidates. In a PIL filed by PUCL, SC allowed for NOTA to be a separate button on EVMs.
• Environmental Rights: In (MC Mehta Case) Oleum Gas Leak case Supreme Court coined the aboslute liability principle and held polluting industries responsible for giving compensation to victims. In Indian Council for Enviro- Legal Action v. Union of India case Court used the ‘Polluter’s Pay Principle’ to give compensation to villagers who were infected because of toxic waste disposed by the industries. In the Taj Mahal Case (MC Mehta v. Union of India) the ‘Precautionary Principle’ was applied and polluting industries around Taj Mahal were asked to shut down.

• Legislative Inaction: PILs arise when the legislature fails to enact timely legislation to address evolving societal needs. Eg Formulation of Vishakha Guidelines.
• Administrative Failures: PILs are necessary when authorities neglect their administrative duties, as seen in cases like Delhi pollution.
• Ensuring justice - giving a voice to the powerless eg Hussainara Khatoon Case: over 40,000 undertrials were released from jail.
• Safeguarding Fundamental Rights and reinforcing Directive Principles (Article 39 A)
• Economical Solution - No requirement for affidavits, and a nominal fixed court fee suffices.
• Fostering good governance through activism by civil society.

Factors Responsible for the Growth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India

• Judicial Activism: The proactive stance of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, through judicial activism played a significant role in fostering the growth of PIL.
• Awareness and Empowerment: Increased awareness among the general public about their rights and the role of PIL in addressing societal issues has empowered individuals and organizations to actively engage in public interest litigation.
• Precedents and Landmark Judgments: Landmark judgments delivered through PIL, such as Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar and S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, have set precedents and inspired confidence in the efficacy of PIL as a mechanism for social change, further fueling its growth.
• Legal Aid and Support: Availability of legal aid services and support from pro-bono lawyers and legal clinics has facilitated the filing and representation of PIL cases

• Development of Vishakha Guidelines (Combatting Sexual Harassment in the Workplace).
• Abolition of instantaneous triple talaq.
• Recognition of privacy as a fundamental right.
• Decriminalization of consensual homosexual relations (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India - Section 377 of IPC).
• Legalization of Passive Euthanasia (Aruna Shanbaug case).
• Hussainara Khatoon Case: over 40,000 undertrials were released from jail.

• Misappropriation of PIL for personal commercial motives or to gain publicity.
• Frivolous litigation aimed at harassing sincere civil servants.
• Burdening of the Judiciary with excessive PIL filings.
• Doctrine of Separation of Power: Concerns arise over potential judicial overreach and exceeding jurisdictional boundaries, which may breach the Separation of Powers doctrine.

To prevent the misuse of PILs, the Supreme Court provided guidelines in the State of Uttaranchal versus Balwant Singh case :

• It had directed every High Court to establish its own set of rules to promote bona fide Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions while deterring those motivated by ulterior motives
• Verification of the credentials of the petitioner before considering the plea.
• Checking the accuracy and correctness of the information presented in the petition.
• Ensuring that the petition addresses issues of significant public interest, gravity, and urgency, warranting priority consideration.
• Confirming that there are no personal gains or hidden motives behind the PIL.
• Ensuring that the PIL seeks redressal for genuine public harm or injury.

It is imperative to ensure that the guidelines formulated by the apex court for hearing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) are uniformly implemented across the judicial system. PILs should primarily be confined to cases where access to justice is hindered by some form of disability, and the PIL route should only be considered after all alternative mechanisms for seeking justice have been exhausted. Additionally, the court must remain vigilant to prevent abuse of the PIL process by politicians and other entities aiming to obstruct legitimate administrative actions. To deter misuse, penalties should be enforced in cases where PILs are manipulated for ulterior motives, thereby upholding the integrity and effectiveness of the PIL mechanism.