PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION – AN EFFECTIVE POOR MAN’S TOOL

By
Name of the Student: K Vijay Srinivas
Roll No.:2018095
Semester: IV
Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member

DR. NAMBALLA BHAGYALAKSHMI

Date of Submission: 12 December 2020

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM–531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express our sincere gratitude to our Dr. Namballa Bhagyalakshmi ma’am for not
only providing me with an opportunity to do this project but also for providing her
indispensable guidance and support in conducting a detailed study on this topic.
I am also grateful towards everyone who has helped, in one way or the other, to complete the
project. A lot of effort has been put into this study to make it as factually error free as
possible and we thank everyone for ensuring the same.

I also thank my parents for their kind cooperation and encouragement without which this
project would not have been possible.
Table of Contents

1. Abstract……………………………………………….4
2. Synopsis ……………………………………………….5
3. “Introduction…………………………………………….8
4. Growth of Pil ……………………………………………11
5. Evolution of Pil In India………………………………….13
6. Salient Characteristics of Pil………………………………16
7. Abuse of Pil…………………………………………………..20
8. Notable Pil Cases…………………………………………….22
9. Conclusion……………………………………………………..27
ABSTRACT

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could
achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private
litigation. PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society,
provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to spread
awareness about human rights and participate in government decision making.

PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable.
However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is essential to ensure that PIL does
not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores, or gain easy publicity.
Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-to-
day basis or enter the executive and legislature's legitimate domain. Therefore, the challenge
for states is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous
ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build economic (dis)incentives in PIL and
confine it primarily to those cases where some disability undermines access to justice.
SYNOPSIS

TITLE OF THE PROJECT: Public interest litigation – an effective poor man’s tool

INTRODUCTION:

The global reputation of Indian courts and perhaps their national reputation as well, as
judicial innovators and as defenders of the interests of the disadvantaged and downtrodden,
rests largely on Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a new set of procedures for expanding access
to justice that were developed some 30 years ago. Assessments of PIL in India range from the
laudatory to the cynical, but recent scholarship has developed a widely held narrative that
runs like this.2 PIL or “social action litigation,” as some call it, originated in the late 1970s
when the judiciary, aiming to recapture popular support after its complicity in Indira
Gandhi’s declaration of emergency rule, encouraged litigation concerning the interests of the
poor and marginalized, and to do so loosened rules and traditions related to standing, case
filing, the adversarial process, and judicial remedies. The Supreme Court issued a number of
landmark social justice cases in the 1980s and early 1990s, including key rulings on the rights
of prisoners, bonded labourers, pavement dwellers, and children. The frequency of PIL cases
in the Supreme Court and the High Court’s increased as claimants and their lawyers learned
how to take advantage of the more liberal procedures associated with PIL. By the middle to
late 1990s, the range of issues the courts were addressing had expanded to include complex
environmental concerns, such as urban pollution and solid waste disposal, as well as
explicitly political issues, such as official corruption and elections. At the same time, some
claimants and their lawyers learned to “dress up” private disputes as PIL. Human rights
activists began to grow disenchanted with courts’ failure to enforce sweeping directives.
Recently, many have questioned the appropriateness of judicial intervention in the legislative
and executive spheres, as well as the constitutionality of the court’s efforts to implement
many of its expansive orders.

Objectives of the Study:-

The main objectives of the study is to understand the concept “Public Interest Litigation” in
order to understand its reliability, advantages and disadvantages over its usage on the subjects
concerned.

Scope of the Study:-

The scope of the study is limited to understanding the advantages, disadvantages and the
reliability of “Public Interest Litigation” including the analysis of various Legal Provisions
and Case Laws from India.

Research Methodology

This project is purely doctrinal and is based on primary and secondary sources, such as
newspaper articles, websites, books, magazines and Internet sources. This research process
seeks to collect and analyze information to answer questions. The research is purely
descriptive in limits of the subjects.

Research Question

1. Whether the interpretation of the concept by the courts is efficient in securing justice?

Literature Review

The following sources have been used for pursuing the present project effectively which have
been mentioned below as follows:-

1. Primary Sources:- The primary sources which have been used for the project are:-
1. Constitution of India,
2. Heinonline (Online Source).
3. Westlaw (Online Source).
4. Lexis Nexis (Online Source).
5. Cambridge University, E-books (Online Source).
6. JSTOR (Online Source).
7. Oxford Legal Research Library (Online Source).
2. Secondary Sources:- The following articles have been used by the researcher as the
secondary sources in pursuance of the project. The executive summary of these articles
shall be mentioned by the researcher which is mentioned below as follows:-

Public Interest Litigation: Access to Justice, Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Bohra,(Sr. Lecturer,
Amity Law School, )

The present article has been taken from Manupatra .The present article has been introduced in
a very unique manner wherein we can observe the concept of “public interest litigation” with
the growing and faster developing society every day. The article enlightens the concept of
PIL and the various forms of administration by courts and their effect the on the
contemporary law. However, the present article also discusses about the other problems
which arise with this concept as escape the proceedings of law which shall be dealt with in
the contexts of the research paper.

Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review Surya Deva (School of Law, Hong
Kong)

The present article has been taken the Jstor written by Assistant professor Surya Deva,
School of Law, and City University of Hong Kong. The present article describes the situation
of public interest litigation in the Indian Contemporary laws and the access to the civilian of
the country. The article explains the concept of PIl and the various forms of administration by
the courts and their impact on contemporary law. However, this article also discusses other
issues that arise with this concept of escaping the legal process that will be dealt with in the
contexts of the research paper.
“INTRODUCTION

A development of great consequence in the Indian law is the emergence of public interest
litigation where a petitioner comes to the court to espouse a matter of public interest. There
has been dynamic progress in the cosmos of PIL.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has immense social value and relevance to modern society as
in this kind of litigation, the petitioner seeks to enforce, or prevent a breach of, general public
law.

PIL seeks to concretise public interest law which may otherwise remain amorphous in the
absence of any enforcement machinery.

PIL denotes a very significant aspect of judicial creativity and dynamism.

PIL has been used in India on a large scale. Since 1982, when the concept of PIL was
accepted by the Supreme Court in the famous case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India , 1hundreds
of cases have been filed in the Supreme Court and the High Court’s covering various areas,
e.g., administration of criminal justice; environment protection; protection of the under-
privileged and weaker sections of the society, such as, labour, children, prisoners; protection
of the independence of the judiciary; maintenance of rule of law, corruption in high places,
misuse of power by Ministers etc.

Two broad categories of PIL may be identified from the case law:

(i) a court action by a member or members of a class which may have been adversely
affected by an administrative wrong;
(ii) a court action by a public spirited individual, or a group of persons, to vindicate the
rights of other persons (individuals, groups or public at large), against administrative
wrongs, though the person or the group undertaking the court action, may not by
itself have suffered any injury.

The second category, mentioned above, consists of court action undertaken by persons
dedicated to social causes out of altruistic motives, not for personal benefit, but for the good
of others. This may further comprise of two categories:

1. Generally to redress a public wrong or injury arising out of an act of commission or

omission on the part of the Administration this is against law or the Constitution,

1
AIR 1982 SC 149 : 1981 Supp SCC 87
2. Where a class of persons suffers a legal injury or legal wrong, but the persons suffering are
not able to seek redressal of their grievances through a court action by reason of poverty,
ignorance, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position.

In any of these cases, any member of the public can go to court to obtain judicial redress for
the grievance in question. Thus, law professors, journalists, associations dedicated to the
promotion of basic rights, and social action groups went to court to address the grievances of
the most vulnerable groups in society. The court must be extremely careful when deciding on
a matter related to international law, if there is any affected public interest or any harm or
violation of the rule of law, then the court should only exercise its power in judicial review.2

The jurisdiction of the Court, when invoked in a petition in the public interest, shall be
exercised with the aim of ensuring that constitutional or statutory duties by those charged
with exercising these powers are not relinquished. In considering such a request, it would be
inconvenient for the court to replace the role and function of the constitutional authority or
replace its judgment with the power of policymaking or the discretion of the constitutional
official. Public interest litigation aims to ensure governance in accordance with constitutional
and legal mandates. The law of international law cannot provide a means for a government
that has been replaced, nor can the court, in a democratic framework governed by the
separation of powers, assume the governing task that the constitution leaves to the elected
representatives or expert bodies responsible for the collective wisdom of the legislature. The
function of the court is to ensure that the ruling process is in line with the standards set by the
Constitution and the legal requirements that govern it. Once the court is convinced that this is
the case, there must be an element of respect, particularly in matters involving technical
expertise or policymaking functions, over which constitutional or statutory powers are
delegated.3

Litigation does not become a conflict of public interest simply because it raises legal issues
of general interest. These important issues are often decided in private litigation and in
helping the public, but public interest litigation varies. International law is where the interest,
over which the court rules, is itself, represented, a public interest. A government order
prohibited the use of the sports field for non-sports related activities. However, the
government granted permission to hold farmers' conferences under a subsequent relaxation
order. It has been implemented in PIL that there can be no exception for government jobs
2
Welfare Society of Orissa v. Union of India, AIR 2010 Ori 183,
3
Raghunath Shankar Kelkar v. Union of India, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2665 (Bom)
regarding the use of the stadium; otherwise it will lose its international standard given that it
was built. In the present case, the court noted that the matter was more about the PIL than an
ordinary judicial order petition and that the petitioners were motivated by the best of
intentions when submitting the petition. However, the court noted that best intention alone is
not the only indispensable requirement for the PIL. When the state granted the land to
establish a sugar factory, but it was sold for commercial purposes, it was considered that the
issue of using public property could be studied in the PIL.4

If a lawsuit can be instituted as a representative proceeding on behalf of several people who

have the same interest with the aim of avoiding multiple lawsuits, a written petition can also
be filed as a representative action on behalf of several persons with the same interest against
State authorities and public authorities and such a petition will be classified as It is public
interest suits on behalf of many people with the same interest. The civilian population of the
camp area collectively challenged the notice issued by the Union of India to resume the land
and bungalows in the area under their occupation, claiming that they are not the property of
the Federation of India but rather the property of the state of M. It has been found that this
collective or representative action is recognized as one type of "public interest litigation." ".
The closure lawsuit cannot be filed against the lessee or the licensee under Article 116 of the
Indian Evidence Act and decided upon in any lawsuit or action by or against the tenant or the
property licensee and not in a public interest litigation lawsuit.5

4
Anil Gupta v. State of M.P., AIR 2008 (NOC) 1384 (MP) (DB)
5
Association of the Residents of Mhow v. Union of India, AIR 2010 MP 40
GROWTH OF PIL

There are manifold reasons justifying the emergence of public interest litigation in India e.g

(1) As the power of the bureaucracy is expanding so it is inevitable that correspondingly the
supervisory judicial power over the government should also expand.

(2) PIL provides a means to redress public wrongs which would otherwise remain under the
traditional locus standi doctrine even though the individual had the will and capacity to
approach the court. The court’s justification for development of public interest litigation has
been as follows: If an administrative action causes no specific legal injury to a person, or to a
determinate group or class of persons, but does so only to public interest, then the question is
as to who can maintain an action for vindicating the rule of law and setting aside the
unlawful action of enforcing the performance of public duty.

In the words of BHAGWATI , J.

"If no one can maintain action for redress of such public wrong or public injury, it would be
disastrous for the rule of law, for it would be open to the State or a public authority to act
with impunity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of a public duty owed by it. The
Courts cannot countenance such a situation where the observance of the law is left to the
sweet will of the authority bound by it, without any redress if the law is contravened."

(3) Underprivileged groups or individuals suffering from adverse administrative action are
not usually in a position to initiate court action themselves to vindicate their rights and
interests because of such disabilities as poverty, ignorance, fear etc. If no one helps them,
they would continue to suffer the wrong. If public men or concerned voluntary associations
do not agitate such matters the grievance of the poor will ever remain unrepressed as such
persons are least equipped to themselves bring their grievances before the courts and such a
situation is destructive of the Rule of Law.

(4) Interests affected may be so diffused and fragmented, and the injury to each individual
so small, that no one may have any incentive to undertake court action to vindicate his own
interest or to redress his grievance. In such a situation, unless some socially-motivated group
or individual initiate’s court action, public wrong may ever remain underdressed and
individual may continue to suffer.
Some examples of such a situation may be users of road transport, consumer protection,
environmental pollution etc.

As BHAGWATI, J. has pointed out: "Individual rights and duties are giving place to meta-
individual, collective, social rights and duties of classes or groups of persons.’ In such a
situation, unless some socially-motivated group or individual were to undertake court action
to seek redress, the public wrong may go unredressed and individuals may continue to suffer.
Public interest litigation vindicates vital public interests and ensures "interest representations
in the administrative process and people’s participation in the government."

(5) Public Interest Litigation vindicates vital public interests and promotes people’s
participation in the government and administrative process thus promoting participative
democracy.

(6) In India, the ombudsman system has not been introduced yet to redress individual
grievances against the Administration. Therefore, to some extent, the courts have to perform
that role through the medium of Public Interest Litigation.

(7) The risk of legal action by a citizen may include the state or the Administration to behave
with greater responsibility, accountability and care. PIL instils accountability in the
Administration.

In this kind of litigation, the petitioner seeks to enforce, or prevent a breach of, general
public law. PIL is thus of great social relevance to the present-day Indian society.
EVOLUTION OF PIL IN INDIA

Public interest litigation is the result of achieving the court’s constitutional obligation. It is a
significant jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts. In order to
provide access to justice for the poor, disadvantaged, vulnerable, discriminated and
marginalized segments of society, the Supreme Court initiated, encouraged and pushed for
public interest litigation. It is the result and product of the deep and intense urging of the
Supreme Court to fulfil its binding duty and constitutional obligations.

The origin and development of public interest claims in India stemmed from the realization
of a constitutional commitment by the judiciary towards a broad segment of society from the
poor and marginalized in society. This jurisdiction was established and established through
judicial creativity and craftsmanship. The court realized that due to extreme poverty, a large
number of sectors of society could not approach the court fundamental rights have no
meaning for them.

In order to preserve and protect the basic rights of the marginalized Fundamental rights have
no meaning for them, and in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of the
marginalized segment of society, the courts began with judicial innovation and creativity by
giving directions and orders necessary for the public interest.6

In India, the Public Interest Litigation developed in three phases,

Phase I

It deals with cases of the Supreme Court of India where directives and orders have been
issued to protect fundamental rights in art. 21 of the Constitution of India for marginalized
groups and sections of society who, due to extreme poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance, we are
unable to appeal to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Courts.

The courts expanded the meaning of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21
of the constitution. The rule of "locus standi" was weakened, and the traditional meaning of
"aggrieved person" was expanded to allow access to justice for a broad section of society that
would otherwise not benefit from the judicial system. The development of public interest
claims was significant in the history of Indian jurisprudence. Supreme Court decisions in the
1970s relaxed strict parking requirements to allow petitions to be filed on behalf of
marginalized and disenfranchised groups of society by individuals, institutions, and public
6
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
bodies. The Supreme Courts exercised the broad powers granted to them under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution. The remedies required by courts in public interest cases go
beyond granting remedies to affected individuals and groups. Inappropriate cases, the courts
have also issued guidelines and directives. Courts monitored the implementation of
legislation and even drafted guidelines in the absence of legislation. In the 1970s and 1980s,
most of the public interest litigation cases before the courts over the enforcement of the
fundamental rights of marginalized and disenfranchised sectors of society were analyzed.
This is the first stage or golden age of public interest litigation. The Supreme Court followed
the Supreme Court and exercised similar jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Through this process, the Supreme Court and Supreme Courts have gained great respect and
gained significant credibility in the public eye due to their innovative efforts to protect and
preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging to the poor and marginalized groups of
society.7

Phase II

It deals with issues related to the protection and preservation of the environment, ecology,
forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc.

The second stage of public interest litigation began sometime in the 1980s and is related to
the innovation and creativity of the courts, in which directives were issued to protect the
environment and the environment. There are a number of cases in which the Supreme Court
has attempted and issued orders to protect forest cover, the environment and the environment.
The Supreme Court has a regular Forestry Board (Green Bench) and regularly issues orders
and directives regarding various forest covers, illegal mining, destruction of marine life and
wildlife, etc. The Supreme Court has paid special attention to the problems of air pollution,
water pollution and environmental degradation and has issued a series of directives and
orders to ensure the preservation, preservation and protection of the environment, the
environment and the wildlife.

The scale of injustice occurring on Indian soil is catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of

factories operate without pollution control devices. Thousands of indigenous people go to the
mines and perform dangerous work without adequate security protection. Every day millions
of litres of untreated liquid waste are dumped into rivers and millions of tons of hazardous
waste on Earth. The environment has degraded so much that instead of caring for people, it is

7
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
poisoning them. In this scenario, and in a large number of cases, the Supreme Court
intervened and issued directives. Due to the massive destruction of the environment,
environment, forests, marine life, fauna, etc., the courts have issued directives in a large
number of cases for the greater public interest. The courts have made serious efforts to
protect the environment, environs, forests, hills, rivers, marine life, wildlife, etc.8

Phase III

It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity, transparency and
integrity in governance.

In the 1990s, the Supreme Court expanded the scope and scope of public interest litigation
further. Also, under Article 226, the Supreme Court followed the Supreme Court and issued
several rulings, orders, or directives to expose corruption and preserve integrity and morals in
ruling the state. Integrity in governance is an indispensable condition for an effective
management system and the country's development, and one of the essential requirements for
ensuring integrity in governance is the absence of corruption.

This may broadly be called the third stage of public interest litigation. The Indian courts may
have drawn some inspiration from collective or class interest lawsuits in the United States of
America and other countries. However, the form of the public interest litigation as it is now
evident is mostly domestically developed jurisprudence. Litigation in the public interest as
developed in its various facets and branches is unparalleled.

The Indian courts, through their judicial skill, creativity, and urging them to provide access to
justice to disadvantaged, discriminatory and vulnerable sectors of society have touched nearly
every aspect of human life while dealing with cases filed in the name of public interest
claims. The contribution of the courts in helping the lowest groups in society by giving a new
definition of life, freedom, environmental protection and forests is significant.9

8
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
9
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF PIL

PIL today serves a much broader social purpose than mere espousal of the grievances of the
poor and deprived persons. Besides the cases which espouse the cause relating to the poor
and the downtrodden, PIL is now used to ventilate public grievances where the society, as a
whole, rather than a specific individual, feel aggrieved, such as, environmental pollution,
infringement of constitutional values, misuse of power by Administration, etc. Had the
traditional rule of locus standi been strictly followed by the courts, no much public grievance
could have been brought before the court by any individual, for when the society suffers,
there is no one specific individual who can claim locus standi to espouse the social grievance
before the court for redressal.

PIL is brought before the court, not to enforce the rights of a single individual against another
as usually happens in the case of ordinary litigation. Under PIL, cases raising all kinds of
socio-economic, constitutional and administrative problems affecting the public generally,
such as environmental pollution, misuse of powers by the Ministers, or the Administration
have been canvassed. Public interest litigation may be entertained when an issue of great
public importance is involved, but not to settle personal scores.

The only ground on which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of
a violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India or human rights or where the litigation has
been initiated for the benefit of the poor and underprivileged who are unable to come to the
court due to some disadvantage. In the instant case, the Supreme Court observed that the only
ground on which the appellants could maintain a PIL was to seek the protection of the interest
of the people of Pondicherry by safeguarding the environment; instead, they had challenged
the award of the contract.

A PIL is not like adversary litigation. It is pro bono public and should not smack of any
ulterior motive, and no person has a right to achieve ulterior purpose through such litigations.
The court can take cognizance in a PIL when there are complaints which shock the judicial
conscience. It is for enforcement of fundamental human rights of the weaker section of the
community who are poor, downtrodden, ignorant, and illiterate and whose fundamental rights
and statutory rights have been violated. There must be general harm and public error resulting
from unlawful or overly powerful acts or negligence on the part of the state or public
authority. It is to compel the executive to implement its constitutional and legal obligations.
Litigation should not be in vain by people who have a vested interest.10

Public interest litigation is not like adversarial litigation. However, it is a challenge and an
opportunity to Government and its officers to make fundamental human rights meaningful to
the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and
economic justice which is the signature tune of the Constitution. The Government and its
employees must welcome public interest claims because it will provide them with an
opportunity to examine whether the poor and the poor downtrodden are getting their social
and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and
exploitation at the hands of robust and influential sections of the community, and whether
social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them, or it has remained
merely a teasing illusion and a promise of unreality so that in case complaint in public
interest litigation is found to be accurate, they can, in fulfilling their constitutional duties,
eradicate exploitation and injustice, and ensure this weaker sections their rights and
entitlements.11

The Supreme Court has made an innovation, as regards the responsibility to collect evidence
in support of the public cause.

Ordinarily, it falls on one who moves the Court to prove his case. Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court has said that this responsibility to collect evidence cannot be placed on the petitioner
espousing the cause of the poor. The poor themselves are not in a position to do so.
Therefore, in several cases, the Supreme Court has appointed a kind of socio-legal committee
comprising of eminent persons, or a commissioner, to collect facts, data, and evidence, as
regards the subject-matter of the PIL petition and place it before the Court.

The Court can appoint a commission to collect data and facts from disposing of a petition.
The report of the commission is served on all parties and may even be made known to the
public. If any person wants to dispute any of the facts or data stated in the report, he may file
an affidavit and lead evidence. The report of the commission of inquiry prima facie
constitutes evidence on which the Court can act.12

Then the court went on to affirm that "public interest litigation is not the nature of litigating
litigants, but rather a challenge and opportunity for the government and its employees to
10
Ramji Singh v. State of Orissa , AIR 2009 (NOC) 1047 (Ori) (DB)
11
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
12
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
make basic human rights meaningful for the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of society
and to assure them of the social and economic justice that is the signature of our
constitution.13

The PIL can be initiated not necessarily by filling out a formal order petition in court, but
even through a written letter to the court.

In many cases, the courts took note of the letters of individuals complaining of a violation of
fundamental rights and treated these letters as written petitions. The reason for adopting this
liberal judicial position is that since the petitioner, who is a member of the public, is acting
voluntarily and in good faith on behalf of a weaker section, and not in self-interest, it would
not be right or fair to expect such a person acting in the public interest to incur expenditures.
Out of his pocket to contact a lawyer and petition a regular court order to enforce the rights of
the poor. In such a case, therefore, the letter addressed by him may be considered legitimate
by the court as an appropriate measure under the articles 32, and 226. Several cases have
been brought before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court through letters complaining
about the violation of the fundamental rights of some sectors of society.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 14, the Supreme Court has made a forceful plea for accepting
letters written even to individual judges as writ petitions. Art. 32 lays down a constitutional
obligation on the Supreme Court to protect the Fundamental Rights of the people. It is in the
realisation of this constitutional obligation that the Supreme Court has innovated new
methods and strategies for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights, particularly, in the case of
the poor and the disadvantaged who are denied their fundamental human rights and to whom
freedom and liberty have no meaning.

The procedure is merely a handmaiden of justice, and it should not stand in the way of access
to justice to the weaker sections of the society. The Court has reiterated that letters addressed
to individual Judges should not be rejected merely because they are not couched in the
preferred form of address, viz., to the Court or the Chief Justice and his companion judges.
Nor will the letters be rejected on the ground that an affidavit does not support them. The
Court should not take a hard-line stance in this regard; in this respect; otherwise, access to the
Court will become difficult for the poor and disadvantaged persons as well as even for social
action groups.

13
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
14
AIR 1987 SC 1086
This precaution is necessary; otherwise, an unscrupulous person could use PIL to grind his
axe. The Supreme Court has insisted that a petitioner taking recourse to PIL should not be
inspired by malice, or a design to malign others or be actuated by selfish or personal motives
or by political or oblique considerations. The petitioner should be acting bona fide and to
vindicate the cause of justice. The Supreme Court has cautioned that PIL is a weapon which
has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be careful to see
that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it does not encroach upon the sphere
reserved by the Constitution to the executive or the legislature.15

ABUSE OF PIL

15
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Students’ Parent, Medical College, Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910
Of late, such an essential jurisdiction as public interest litigation which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly
abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. Time has come when genuine and bona
fide public interest litigation must be encouraged, whereas frivolous public interest litigation
should be discouraged. The Court has to protect and preserve this critical jurisdiction in the
enormous interest of the people of this country, but practical steps have to be taken to prevent
and cure its abuse based on monetary and non-monetary directions by the Courts. The Court
must ensure that unscrupulous and undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in
the courts of law to waste the valuable time of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the
public in the justice delivery system.16

The Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that accords broad
enough standing to admit genuine PIL petitions but limits standing to thwart frivolous and
vexatious petitions. The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail frivolous public interest
litigation petitions by two methods one monetary and second, non-monetary. The first
category of cases is that where the Court on the filing of frivolous public interest litigation
petitions, dismissed them with exemplary costs to ensure that message goes in the right
direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of courts. In the
second category of cases, the Court even passed harsher orders.17

The malice of malicious petitions did not originate in India. The jurisprudence developed by
the Indian judiciary regarding imposing exemplary costs on frivolous and inconvenient
petitions to the PIL is in line with the jurisprudence developed in other countries. US federal
and Canadian courts have also imposed financial penalties for public interest claims that were
deemed absurd. Courts also imposed non-monetary penalties on defenders for frivolous
lawsuits. US federal courts imposed financial penalties on plaintiffs for frivolous public
interest lawsuits. Case law in Canadian and US federal courts shows that the imposition of
financial penalties for frivolous public interest claims is not limited to Indian jurisprudence.

Additionally, US federal courts have imposed non-monetary penalties on lawyers for filing
frivolous lawsuits. Federal rules and case law leave the door open to applying such non-
monetary penalties equally in private and public interest claims. The Judicial position
supports the ethical obligation set forth in Rule 3.1 of the Model Rules of Professional

16
Kalyaneshwari v. Union of India, 2011 (6) SCALE 220
17
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
Conduct (MRPC). Together, the FRCP, US federal case law, and MRPC are in favour of
imposing cashless penalties on attorneys for filing frivolous or public interest claims.18

NOTABLE PIL CASES

18
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
A variety of issues have been raised before the Supreme Court and the High Courts in the
form of PIL writ petitions under Art. 32 and Art. 226. Public Interest Litigation now serves a
much broader function than merely espousal of the grievances of the weak and the
disadvantaged persons. It is now being used to ventilate public grievances where the society
as a whole, rather than a specific person, feels aggrieved. PIL has given voice to the people to
raise such vital issues as deeply affect the society and seek solutions for these problems. PIL
has made democracy in India more vibrant and has promoted Rule of Law. PIL has given
opportunity to the judiciary to show activism and creativity of a high order. A large number
of cases raising all kinds of socio-economic, constitutional and administrative problems
affecting the public generally such as, protection of the environment, misuse of powers by
Ministers, etc., have been brought before the High Court’s/Supreme Court as PIL.

(i) Salal Project

In Labourers Working on Salal Hydro-Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 19, the Supreme
Court again gave relief to such workers. The matter came before the Court in the following
circumstances.

The Indian Express, in its issue of August 26, 1982, carried a news item that a large number
of migrant workers from different States were working on the Salal Hydro Electric Project
under challenging conditions. These persons were denied the benefits of various labour laws
and were being exploited by the contractors to whom the Central Government had entrusted
different portions of work.

The People’s Union for Democratic Rights which had sponsored the Asiad case thereupon
addressed a letter to Justice D.A. Desai of the Supreme Court enclosing a copy of a news
report and requesting him to treat the letter as a writ petition so that justice could be done to
these poor labourers. The letter was placed before a bench of the Supreme Court, and hearing
started, treating the letter as a writ petition.

Notices were issued to the concerned government, the Labour Commissioner of Jammu and
Kashmir and various other officials of the Central and State Government as respondents. The
Court also directed the Labour Commissioner to visit the site of the project and study the
condition of the labour engaged on the project.

19
AIR 1984 SC 177
The writ petition was argued before the Court based on the reports made by the Labour
Commissioner and the affidavit made by the Deputy Secretary in the Minister of Labour,
Government of India. The Court found that the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act was not
being enforced. The Court, therefore, directed the Central Government to take immediate
steps for enforcement of the provisions of this Act which had been enacted by Parliament to
protect migrant labour from exploitation. The Court also found infringement of the Minimum
Wages Act and the Contract Labour Act. The Court gave necessary directions for ensuring
enforcement of these laws by the Central Government. The Court also directed the
Government to tighten up the inspection machinery. The Court also prohibited the
employment of child labour on construction work which is hazardous employment within the
meaning of Art. 24 of the Constitution and suggested that the Government provide schooling
facilities for these children near the project site.

(ii) Ram Misra

In Ram Kumar Misra v. the State of Bihar, Misra 20, president of the free legal aid committee,
Bhagalpur, complained to the Supreme Court that the workmen employed at the two ferries at
Bhagalpur and Sultanganj were not being paid minimum wages. The letter was treated as a
writ petition, and the Court issued notice to the State of Bihar. The Court also directed the
district magistrate, Bhagalpur, and the petitioner jointly to carry out an inquiry into the
various averments made in the writ petition and submit a report. Copies of the report were
supplied to the advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. After a hearing, the Court
decided that the ferry workers were entitled to the minimum wage as fixed under the law and
directed the State to pay arrears to the workmen concerned. The Court also directed payment
of Rs. 2000 to the petitioner by way of costs as he had come to the Court to vindicate the
rights of the poor workmen.

(iii) Child Welfare

A very significant PIL case in the area of child welfare is Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of
India,21 and the case was initiated in the Supreme Court based on a letter written by an
advocate complaining of malpractices indulged in by social organisations in the matter of
offering Indian children in adoption to foreign parents. The advocate based his letter on press
reports on this issue.

20
AIR 1984 SC 537
21
AIR 1984 SC 469
This letter was treated as a writ petition by the Supreme Court. The Court issued notices to
the Union of India, the Indian Council of Child Welfare and the Indian Council of Social
Welfare to appear and assist the Court in laying down principles and norms for children to be
allowed to be adopted by foreign parents, and, if so, the procedure to be followed for the
purpose, with the object of ensuring the welfare of the children.

These bodies filed written submissions before the Court, along with the supporting materials.
A Swedish Organisation also participated in the hearing. Several other Indian organisations
concerned with the welfare of the children were also allowed to intervene. As the questions
arising in the writ petition were of national importance, the Court thought it desirable to have
assistance from whatever legitimate sources it might come.

There were oral arguments addressed to the Court which explored every facet of the
problem, involving not only legal but sociological considerations. The Court laid down
several guidelines which should be observed by various agencies involved in child adoption.
In the absence of a uniform law of adoption in India, these guidelines fill a great void in the
Indian law.

(iv) Oleum Gas Leakage

In December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from a unit of a chemical manufacturing
company situated in Delhi which affected over 300 people. M.C. Mehta filed a PIL petition in
the Supreme Court under Art. Thirty-two praying for Court orders against the reopening of
the plants of the company. Applications were also filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association under Arts. 32 and 21 for an award of compensation to
the victims of gas leakage. After taking into consideration the report of the experts, the Court
permitted reopening of the plant but subjected to several stringent conditions laid down by it.
The Court also ruled that the applications were maintainable.

A very positive result of the case 22 is the enunciation by the Court of a rule of absolute
liability. The Court ruled that an enterprise which was engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry which posed a threat to the life and safety of the persons working in the
factory and residing in the surrounding areas owed an absolute duty to the community to
22
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
ensure that no harm resulted to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous
nature of the activity it had undertaken.

Furthermore, such an enterprise was under an obligation to provide the highest standard of
safety, and if any harm resulted in anyone, the enterprise would be liable to pay
compensation for such harm. It would be no answer for the enterprise to say that it had taken
all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.

(v) Criminal Justice

There have been quite a few significant PIL cases in which several serious problems
pertaining to the administration of criminal justice have been probed into by the Supreme
Court. These cases pertain to the area of personal liberty. These cases fall under Art. 21 of the
Constitution.

In such cases, the Supreme Court has taken a too liberal view as regards legal standing. Take,
for example, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration23. In this case, the Supreme Court accepted
a habeas corpus petition by one prisoner complaining of a brutal assault by a head warden on
another prisoner. Another notable feature of this case (which strongly indicated the
solicitousness of the Supreme Court for the protection of personal liberty) is that the Court
expanded the scope of habeas corpus by making it available to a prisoner, not only for
seeking his liberty but also for the enforcement of a constitutional right to which he was
lawfully entitled even in confinement.

In Dr Upendra Baxi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 24, the Supreme Court permitted two law
professors of the University of Delhi, through a letter to the Court, to draw the attention of
the Court to the pitiable condition of the inmates of the protective home at Agra. They were
living in inhuman and degrading conditions in blatant violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution.
By reason of their socially and economically disadvantaged position, they were not in a
position to move the Court themselves. The two law professors sought enforcement of the
constitutional rights of the inmates under Art. 21 by the improvement of their living
conditions in the protective home so that they can live with human dignity.

In Sheela Barse v. the State of Maharashtra25, a letter was written to the Supreme Court by
Sheela Barse, a journalist, complaining of custodial violence to women prisoners whilst

23
AIR 1980 SC 1579
24
(1983) 2 SCC 308
25
AIR 1983 SC 378
confined in police lock-up in the city of Bombay. There were complaints of the police assault
on women in the police lock-up.

The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and issued notice to the State of Maharashtra,
Superintendent, Central Jail and Inspector General of Police, calling upon them why the writ
petition should not be allowed.

The Court also directed the Director of College of Social Work, Bombay, to visit the Central
Jail and interview women prisoners lodged there to ascertain whether they had been subjected
to any torture or ill-treatment and submit her report to the Court. The report revealed specific
facts were not flattering to the prison, authorities, particularly, with respect to women under-
trial prisoners. For example, no adequate arrangements for providing legal assistance to
women prisoners existed in prison. The Court directed the Inspector General of Prisons to
take necessary steps in this direction. The Court also laid down other steps to be taken by
him. The Court also laid down the steps to give protection to women prisoners in the police
lock-up.
CONCLUSION

What has been described above is sufficient to show the significant ameliorative role being
played by the mechanism of Public interest litigation. PIL is the result of judicial activism.
PIL means litigation in the interest of the public. PIL serves to provide a sufficient remedy to
enforce group rights and interests many a time important public issues involving the
interpretation of constitutional provisions are raised through PIL. The range and scope of PIL
are vast as it is a mechanism to agitate any public socio-economic issue before the court,
which can be brought within the legal and constitutional mould.

Some have criticised the institution of PIL as constituting too much interference with the
Administration and policy-making. But a review of the PIL cases would show that such a
criticism is wide off the mark. In most PIL cases, courts interfere not with the action taken by
the Administration but with administrative inaction or non-action, or even legislative
inaction. Many PIL cases could have been avoided if the Administration had been more
responsible, circumspect and responsive to public needs and had duly enforced the laws
existing on the statute book.

The fundamental reason for the growth of PIL in India is bureaucratic unresponsiveness to
public needs. No effective mechanism has been established as yet for redressal of public
grievances against the Administration. The result is that any person having a grievance
against the Administration has no alternative but to take recourse to the courts for the
redressal of his grievances against the Administration. PIL has flourished in India primarily
because of the lack of sense of accountability and responsibility on the part of the
Administration.

PIL has flourished in India mainly because of the lack of any sense of accountability and
responsibility on the part of the government. PIL has grown in India because of bureaucratic
unresponsiveness to public grievances. No effective mechanism has been set up so far to
redress public grievances against the Administration. The result is that any person having a
grievance against the Administration has no alternative to knocking at the doors of the court
for the redressal of his grievance against the Administration.

In the end, one can assert that PIL has come to stay in India as a means of redressal of
grievances of the people against the Administration and as a mechanism of bringing above
the surface social problems which lie hidden from the public eye. PIL constitutes a challenge
to the Administration. The courts have been able to make an inert Administration function
somewhat more vigorously in implementing the law and performing the duties laid upon it by
law. It is mirror-reflection of the contemporary Indian Society.”