PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
"The weaker sections of Indian humanity have been deprived of
justice for long years; they had no access to justice on account of
their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy. They are not aware of the
rights and benefits conferred upon them by the Constitution and
the law. On account of their socially and economically
disadvantaged position they lack the capacity to assert their
rights, and they do not have the material resources with which to
enforce their social and economic entitlements and combat
exploitation and injustice."
- Justice Bhagawathi
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ITS DEFINITION:
The term “Public Interest” in the phrase Public Interest Litigation
means the interest of the public at large, whereas the term
“litigation” in the phrase means a legal action. Therefore, the
general meaning of the term PIL can be extracted from its legal
sense alone.
It is nothing but a legal action taken, covering the issue of the
public at large, for the welfare of the society.
PIL is nothing but litigation filed before the court of law to serve the
welfare to the public at large.
ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF PIL IN INDIA:
The concept of PIL came into India in the nineteenth century. It is
an improved version of U.S.A‟s Public Interest Litigation.
The purpose of blending this concept with the Indian legal
framework was to safeguard the interest of the lower section of
the community, who were poor, and were not able to safeguard
their fundamental rights.
The parents of this concept in India are Justice P.N. Bhagwati and
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. They were the ones who recognised in
providing justice to the poor people by relaxing the rule of locus
standi in 1980‟s.
As a result of it, any citizen or a group can approach the apex
court to seek remedy, in which there is an interest of the Public at
large.
The very first case, which appeared before the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India after the relaxation of the rule of locus standi, was
the case of “Hussainara Khatoon vs. Union of India”. In this case,
an advocate file a PIL based on the news item published in the
Indian Express. The PIL was in relation to the thousands of under
trail prisoners, who were suffering in the Bihar Jail. This PIL resulted
in the release of 40,000 under trial prisoners and the right to
speedy remedy emerged as a fundamental rights.
While the scope of PIL kept widening, people started to misuse this
concept and addressed their personal issues and this lead to an
immediate need of setting up of guidelines before entertaining
any PIL.
WHEN CAN PIL BE FILED? The concept of PIL was introduced as
instrument in order to safeguard the rights of public at large.
Therefore, whenever, a violation of fundamental rights or any
other legal rights are being violated of the public at large, the PIL
can be filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court. In other
words, when there is a public injury or harm caused by any public
or state authority or when it is a question of basic human rights of
the weaker section of the society, the PIL can be filed.
WHO MAY FILE A PIL? A Public Interest Litigation can be filed by
anyone as the rule of „Locus Standi‟ has been relaxed by the
Supreme Court in various numbers of cases. By the term „Locus
Standi‟, it is stated that only the aggrieved person can file up a
case before the court and this rule is kept silent in PIL as it
questions the welfare of the public at large.
HOW TO FILE A PIL: With regard to filing of a PIL, there is no
statutory procedure of filing a PIL, but it has to be filed in a similar
way as that of writs. A PIL can be even in the form of letters or
telegrams to the Chief Justice directly or through the PIL lawyer. A
PIL to be filed should be filed under Article 226 of Indian
Constitution, if it is being filed before High Court and under Article
32, if it is filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
MERITS OF PIL:
The concept of PIL carries a lot of merits, but at the same time,
India has faced various demerits in it and in order to find a solution
to those demerits, appropriate steps have been taken.
The main benefit of Public Interest Litigation is that it helps to
serve the people at large. It is does not benefit the individual
but instead it benefits the public and mainly the weaker
section of the society, who cannot afford to move to the
court in order to protect the Fundamental Right.
Another benefit of PIL is that, it does not restrict any person to
file a PIL.
With regard to PIL is concerned, the Supreme Court has
relaxed the rule of locus standi by which, any person can file
a PIL irrespective of whether the person is an aggrieved
person or not.
The very next merits, which lies in this concept is that, a PIL
can be filed directly to the High Court under Article 226 and
to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and thus it lead
speedy remedy rather than wasting time going through all
the court as per the hierarchy.
Another benefit that can be identified on behalf of this
concept is that the cost of filing a PIL is nominal in nature and
therefore, even the poor people can file a PIL in case there is
a violation of human rights or fundamental rights at large.
One important benefit that lies with this concept is that, there
are no limits or boundaries for the issue to be dealt with. A PIL
can be for any purpose for example, environmental
protection or for the welfare of the labours, provided the
issue put forth should not be for personal gain instead it
should be for the group of people at large.
DEMERITS OF PIL:
PIL has brought a lot of changes in the legal system of India.
It has been considered as a successful phenomenon for a
couple of decades. But, at present, this concept has started
to downfall as it is founded that people are misusing this
concept.
The main reason for misuse of PIL is the easy working system
of it. There are number of demerits of PIL.
The very first demerit is that many frivolous cases has been
filed in the name of PIL as it is an easy access to higher courts
without investment of heavy court fees.
Another demerit is that, PILs have kept the courts busy with
number of PIL cases resulting in lack of attention over other
litigations.
Another point, is that, it has been found out that many
people has filed a PIL for their personal gain as it is a cheaper
way to seek justice
GUIDELINES TO PREVENT MISUSE OF PIL:
The number of cases in which the misuse of PIL has be identified
has reached its peak and so the Supreme Court has bothered to
interfere with this issue and has framed guidelines which are to be
followed by all the subordinate courts before entertaining a PIL
petition.
The guidelines are the outcome of the case “State of Uttaranchal
vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal”.
The guidelines stated in this case are as follows:
1. The PIL should be genuine and bonafide.
2. Each High Court should formulate rules for encouraging
genuine PILs and discourage PILs having malicious object.
3. The court should, at the very beginning verify the credentials of
the PIL before entertaining it.
4. The court should be satisfied with the credentials of the PIL
before accepting the PIL.
5. The court should also ensure that the PIL placed before it
involves a public interest or not.
6. The courts should give priority to those PIL having larger public
interest, gravity and urgency over other PILs.
7. The court should also ensure that the PIL redresses a genuine
public injury and no personal benefits.
8. The court should further ensure that the PIL carrying ulterior
motives should be disposed of with costs.
LANDMARK CASES RELATING TO PIL:
1. Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Administration- In this case, a
prisoner sent a telegram to the judge of the court, complaining
about the forced handcuff on him and demanded a protection
against humiliation. The court considered the PIL petition and
gave necessary directions considering the relaxed rule of locus
standi.
2. Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another - In this
case, two law professors wrote a letter to the court stating about
the inhuman condition prevailing in the Agra Protective Home for
Women. The court considered the letter as a PIL and asked to
improve the condition of the protective home.
3. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan - In this case, a woman, who was
a social activist, was brutally raped while she was in the course of
her employment and on behalf of her; a NGO filed a PIL in the
Supreme Court in order to protect the right of women at the
workplace. The court accepted the petition and laid down the
guidelines to be followed to safeguard the interest of women at
the workplace and later Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was
enacted based on the guidelines served.
4. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others - In this case, a PIL was
filed in order to prevent and protect the Taj Mahal from the
harmful gases from the industry near Taj Mahal. The court
accepted this petition as it was for the protecting the environment
from exploitation and the court ordered the ban on 299 industries
from using coal and asked them to shift over Compressed Natural
Gas (CNG).
5. M. C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu - In this case, a PIL was filed
contending that the employment of children in the factories of
Sivakasi was hazardous and unconstitutional. The court on
entertaining the petition held that children should not be allowed
to work in an industry which is hazardous but can be allowed to
work in the process of packaging due to poverty provided the
packaging area is separated from the manufacturing unit.
Public Interest Litigation has, no doubt, served to the maximum for
the welfare of the society. For such a long time, the PIL has
contributed a lot in moulding the law, in accordance with the
changes and development in the society.
Without this doctrine of Public Interest Litigation, it would have
been a very difficult way to enact and amend laws as per the
changing circumstances of the society. Therefore, this concept
has fastened the process of amend laws in accordance with the
changing needs of the society.
Though, this doctrine has been of utmost importance, the misuse
of it, is much obvious as it has a simple and cheaper procedure,
but the Supreme Court has reduced the misuse of this doctrine by
framing suitable guidelines, which are to be strictly followed by the
courts before entertaining a petition of PIL. Thus, the doctrine of PIL
has been preserved from being misused, and its efficacy is again
retained.
