Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India represents a legal innovation that has profoundly transformed the landscape of Indian jurisprudence. It emerged as a powerful tool for the enforcement of the rights of marginalized sections of society, providing them with access to justice. The inception of PIL marks a shift from traditional legal procedures towards a more inclusive and socially responsive approach.

Evolution of PIL in India

The concept of PIL in India was influenced by the American legal system but was significantly shaped by the unique socio-political context of India. Traditionally, the locus standi rule restricted the right to approach courts to those who were directly affected by the issues. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Indian judiciary began relaxing these rigid procedural norms, allowing individuals or groups to file petitions on behalf of those whose rights were violated but were unable to approach the courts themselves.

The Genesis of PIL: Key Cases

1. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981)
• This case marked the beginning of the PIL era in India. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, allowed a trade union to file a PIL against the disinvestment of a government company, arguing that the workers were directly affected. This judgment laid down the foundation for allowing broader locus standi in PIL cases.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
• Popularly known as the "Judges' Transfer Case," this judgment is a landmark in the development of PIL. The Supreme Court held that any member of the public acting in a bona fide manner could approach the court for redressal of public wrongs or the enforcement of fundamental rights. This case is often cited as a defining moment in the evolution of PIL, as it opened the doors of the judiciary to public-spirited individuals.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
• In this case, the plight of undertrial prisoners who had been languishing in jails for years without trial was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court through a PIL filed by a journalist. The court’s intervention led to the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners, underscoring the potential of PIL in addressing systemic injustices.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
• This PIL, filed by an NGO working for the welfare of bonded laborers, resulted in the Supreme Court issuing comprehensive guidelines to the government for the identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded laborers. The judgment emphasized the judiciary's role in protecting the rights of the weakest sections of society.

The Expansion of PIL: Judicial Activism

As PIL gained traction, the Indian judiciary began addressing a wide array of issues through this mechanism, from environmental protection and consumer rights to corruption and human rights violations.

5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
• This case arose from the brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court, in the absence of specific legislation on sexual harassment at the workplace, laid down guidelines, popularly known as the "Vishaka Guidelines," which were to be treated as law until Parliament enacted legislation on the subject. This judgment highlighted the proactive role of the judiciary in safeguarding rights through PIL.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
• M.C. Mehta, a public-spirited lawyer, filed multiple PILs concerning environmental issues, including pollution of the Ganga River and industrial pollution in Delhi. The Supreme Court’s interventions in these cases led to significant environmental regulations and the establishment of the “Polluter Pays” principle in Indian law.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its successes, PIL in India has faced criticism over the years. Concerns have been raised about the misuse of PIL for personal or political gain, leading to the coining of the term "Publicity Interest Litigation." The judiciary has sometimes overstepped its bounds, venturing into the domain of the executive and legislature, leading to allegations of judicial overreach.

In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the Supreme Court emphasized the need for PIL to be used for genuine public interest and not for private or publicity-related purposes. The court laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of PIL, including the verification of the credentials of the petitioner and the authenticity of the public interest claimed.

Role of High Courts and the Supreme Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has become an essential component of the Indian judicial system, enabling courts to address issues of public concern and safeguard the rights of those who may not have the means or ability to approach the courts themselves. Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India play pivotal roles in the development and adjudication of PILs, each having unique powers and responsibilities.

Role of the High Courts

1. Jurisdiction and Powers

High Courts in India are empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. This broad jurisdiction allows High Courts to entertain PILs on a wide range of issues, from violations of fundamental rights to administrative injustices and environmental concerns.

2. Access to Justice

High Courts serve as the first point of access for PILs in many cases, especially those concerning state or local issues. They have been instrumental in addressing grievances at the grassroots level. For example, High Courts have dealt with issues related to police brutality, illegal detention, and corruption at the state level.

3. Innovative Orders

High Courts have often issued innovative orders in PILs to ensure justice is delivered effectively. For instance, in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983), the Bombay High Court issued guidelines to prevent the ill-treatment of women prisoners. Such orders have helped in setting precedents for the protection of human rights.

4. Supervisory Role

High Courts also play a supervisory role over lower courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. In PIL cases, High Courts often monitor the implementation of their orders to ensure that the authorities comply with the court's directives. This ongoing supervision is crucial in ensuring that justice is not only delivered but also implemented effectively.

5. Balancing Local and National Interests

While High Courts primarily address issues within their respective states, they also balance local and national interests in PILs. In cases involving significant national implications, High Courts may refer the matter to the Supreme Court or coordinate with other High Courts to ensure a consistent approach.

Role of the Supreme Court

1. Jurisdiction and Powers

The Supreme Court of India, under Article 32 of the Constitution, has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This article is considered the cornerstone of PILs at the national level. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is wider in scope, allowing it to take up issues of national importance, including those that affect multiple states or the entire country.

2. Judicial Activism

The Supreme Court has been at the forefront of judicial activism through PILs. It has played a proactive role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights and ensuring social justice. Landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) highlight the Supreme Court's role in protecting the rights of underprivileged sections of society.

3. Setting Precedents

As the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court’s decisions in PIL cases set binding precedents for all lower courts. This ensures uniformity in the interpretation and application of the law across India. For instance, the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgment laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, which became binding across the nation.

4. National and Transnational Issues

The Supreme Court often deals with PILs involving national and transnational issues, such as environmental protection, human rights violations, and economic reforms. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court issued orders for the protection of the environment, including directives for controlling pollution in the Ganga River, which had implications beyond state boundaries.

5. Continuous Mandamus

The Supreme Court has developed the concept of "continuous mandamus" in PIL cases, where the court keeps a case pending and regularly monitors the implementation of its orders. This approach ensures that the authorities remain accountable for implementing the court’s directives. An example of this is the ongoing monitoring of pollution control measures in Delhi by the Supreme Court.

6. Expanding the Scope of Rights

Through PILs, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of rights guaranteed under the Constitution. For instance, in the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) case, the court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Such interpretations have significantly broadened the horizon of fundamental rights in India.

Conclusion

Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court play crucial roles in the PIL framework in India. While High Courts act as the guardians of rights at the state level, providing immediate relief in many cases, the Supreme Court serves as the ultimate arbiter of justice, setting national standards and addressing issues of paramount importance. Together, they ensure that PILs serve their purpose of advancing the cause of justice, particularly for those who are most vulnerable in society.

Public Interest Litigation has undoubtedly revolutionized access to justice in India, empowering ordinary citizens to bring social, economic, and environmental issues before the courts. While it remains a powerful tool for social change, its effectiveness depends on its judicious use. The Indian judiciary must continue to strike a balance between activism and restraint to ensure that PIL serves its intended purpose of advancing the cause of justice for all.

Citations

1. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981 AIR 344, 1981 SCR (2) 52)
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149)
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532)
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67)
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 6 SCC 241)
6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986 AIR 1086, 1986 SCR (1) 312)
7. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010 3 SCC 402)

Share this News