PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: INDIAN CONTEXT
Introduction:
• The term 'Public Interest Litigation' originates from American jurisprudence, aiming to offer legal representation to previously unrepresented groups such as the impoverished, racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and individuals passionate about environmental issues.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to legal proceedings initiated in a court to safeguard "Public Interest," addressing concerns like pollution, terrorism, road safety, and constructional hazards. Any issue affecting the broader public interest can be addressed through PIL in a court of law.
• PIL lacks a statutory definition and has been construed by judges based on the broader intent of the public. It empowers the public through judicial activism, requiring petitioners to demonstrate that their filing serves public interest rather than frivolous litigation.
• Courts can initiate cases suo motu, or they can commence based on petitions from public-spirited individuals. PIL addresses a range of issues, including bonded labor, neglected children, non-payment of minimum wages, atrocities on women, environmental pollution, food adulteration, and heritage preservation.
Genesis and Evolution of PIL in India: Landmark Judgements:
• Justice Krishna Iyer laid the foundation for public interest litigation in India in 1976 with the Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai case.
• The first reported PIL case, Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979), focused on the inhumane conditions of prisons and undertrial prisoners, resulting in the release of over 40,000 prisoners.
• Justice P.N. Bhagawati's pivotal role in the S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India case marked a new era for PIL, granting citizens and social action groups the ability to invoke writ jurisdiction for the redressal of legal or constitutional rights.
• Bhagwati emphasized that PIL could address public duties and injuries caused by executive actions, allowing any citizen, consumer group, or social action group to approach the apex court for remedies.
Factors Driving PIL Growth in India:
• The Indian Constitution, with its provisions on fundamental rights (Part III) and directive principles (Part IV), provides a framework for regulating state-citizen relations, facilitating PIL.
• Progressive social legislations in India on bonded labor, minimum wages, environmental protection, etc., enable courts to hold the executive accountable for upholding the rights of the poor.
• Liberal interpretation of locus standi allows anyone to approach the court on behalf of those unable to do so, and courts may initiate action based on letters or articles.
• Creative judicial interpretations have expanded social and economic rights into fundamental rights, making them judicially enforceable.
• Judicial innovations, such as burden-shifting in cases like Bandhua Mukti Morcha and direct access to the Supreme Court for minimum wage violations, strengthen PIL's effectiveness.
• Commissions appointed by courts help gather evidence in PIL cases where petitioners lack resources.
Who Can File PIL and Against Whom:
• Any citizen can file a PIL in the Supreme Court (Art 32) or High Court (Art 226) under specific conditions outlined to ensure genuine public interest.
• PIL can be filed against state/central governments, municipal authorities, but not private parties, with the definition of "State" aligning with Article 12 of the Constitution.
Significance of PIL:
• PIL aims to provide common people access to courts for legal redress, fostering social change and maintaining the balance between law and justice.
• It serves as a tool for human rights enforcement, democratizes access to justice, monitors state institutions, facilitates judicial review, and promotes public participation.
Weaknesses of PIL:
• PIL actions may lead to conflicts of rights, overburden courts with frivolous cases, result in judicial overreach, and face delays in resolving matters affecting exploited groups.
Conclusion:
• PIL in India has achieved remarkable outcomes, offering relief to marginalized and oppressed individuals.
• Its greatest contribution lies in holding governments accountable for the human rights of the poor.
• While PIL has established a new jurisprudence, caution is needed to avoid judicial overreach and discourage frivolous cases with vested interests.