PIL: Public Interest Litigation

INTRODUCTION

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a type of litigation which is to safeguard the interest of public and determines the availability of justice to the communally deprived parties. The idea of PIL came during the 1990's in the Indian Judicial System by seventeenth CJI P.N. Bhagwati (mainly called the father of PIL) however the seeds of PIL were embedded by Justice Krishna Iyerin in 1976 in the case "Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai"[1] .The first case of PIL being Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[2] wherein in December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed an appeal with respect to the state of the prisoners confined in the Bihar prison, whose suits were forthcoming in court. The Bihar prisoners signed the petition and the suit was heard by the bench headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Supreme Court. The appeal was documented under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, due to it the case was named as “Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar”. The Supreme Court concluded that prisoners ought to get free legal help and quick hearings. Therefore, 40,000 prisoners were delivered from prison. From that point numerous similar cases have been registered in the Supreme Court.

The term PIL is not specifically defined under act but the meaning of it is developed from various judgements. It is indistinguishable to writ petition as it also filed before of High court under article 226 or before Supreme Court under article 32, however the principal contrast between both is that writs are filed by people or group of people for personal advantage though PIL is documented by individual or group of people to support the overall population not for personal advantage. PIL can also be filed under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a magistrate’s court. PIL can also impart justice or can help people by allowing citizens, advocates, and social welfare organisations to file suits on the behalf of people who cannot approach the courts. A good example of which are the landmark cases of- “Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan”[3]. In this case, the issue was of sexual harassment in the workplace and was filed by Bhanwari Devi, a social activist, who was raped by five men when she was trying to stop the marriage of a one-year girl in Rajasthan. But she faced many problems when she attempted to seek justice but didn’t got justice. Later, Naina Kapoor decided to file a PIL to challenge sexual harassment at workplace in the Supreme Court and the judgment came in favour of Naina Kapoor as there was violation of fundamental rights of Article 14, 15, 20. Other cases related to PIL are:

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India” [4]

In 1985 a writ petition was documented in Supreme Court by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he looked for closing of Shriram Industries as it was occupied with manufacturing of hazardous substances and situated in a thickly populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was there was leakage of oleum gas from one of its units which caused the demise and affected few other people also. M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution and looked for closure and migration of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant which was situated in a thickly populated region of Delhi.

The theory of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is fit to the principals set down in Article 39A[a] of the Constitution of India to ensure and convey social equity with the help of law. In this Modern Era, PIL has today obtained exceptional authenticity and restricting force and is recognized as an incredible weapon to battle legislative disorder and community exploitation. The lawful information transmitted by PIL suits give lawful assets to dispatch battles against control and mistreatments of intensity. It arose as a device to enact legal capacity to drive the administration to satisfy its responsibilities. PILs today stress over the affirmation of the interests of a individual or group of individuals who are either the overcomers of administrative issue, abuse, or social maltreatment or denied their authentic rights and who are not in a circumstance to push toward the court for the pay of their complaints due to the absence of resources or ignorance or their burdened social and financial position. A good example of the statement is the case of Rural Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446-A”[5]. For this case a writ petition was filed by an organization to be specific, "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action" under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to bring to their notification the pollution problem that the individuals from Bichhri town of Udaipur, Rajasthan were looking because of some industrial plants that were set up in the regional regions of the town.

It was said that the Defendants worked powerful industry plants there, creating different chemicals, for example, oleum, single super phosphate and the significantly noxious "H" destructive (the collecting of which is restricted in western countries). which caused authentic contamination of the atmosphere. Unsafe material water was untreated and left to be disbursed into the earth making aquifer and the underground deftly of water be grotty. Years after this petition being filed came the Court’s judgment wherein the court held the defendants produced the loss deprived of the vital permissions/assents, didn't introduce proper treatment gear, didn't complete the tribunal's requests, and continued in an unlawful course of movement. The harm defendants had brought about by releasing noxious unsafe waters in the land was unbelievable. It had influenced nearby residents, the dirt and water, and the climate. Section 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 drew in the Central Government to take basic measures to ensure the climate. Appropriately the Central Government would choose the measure of cash expected to do cure measures for the present circumstance. Defendants were in risk to pay to improve and re-establish the climate around there.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. What is a PIL? How is it different from Writ petition?

2. How does PIL benefit the citizens of India?

3. Under which sections or articles can a person file a PIL?

4. How has PIL evolved in India?

5. What are the various aspects of PIL?

6. How has the concept of PIL developed in these years?

7. What is the Role of PIL in environment protection laws?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The researcher went through no. of books that are “Law of Torts” by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal; “Public Interest Litigation” by Basant Lal Wadehra; “The Writ Remedies” by B.P. Banerjee and “The judicial application of Human Rights Law” by Nihal Jayawickrama.

The researcher went through no. of journals and articles by different writers like; “Public Interest Litigation in India: As a Paradigm for developing Nations” by Zachary Holladay: “Actio Popularis – A Perspective analysis on Public Interest Litigation in India” by Ansuman Rabboni and P. Kingsley Alfred Chandrasekaran; “Courting the people: PIL in Post-Emergency India” and “Promises and Perils of Public Interest Litigation in India” by Anuj Bhuwania. Apart from these the researcher gained information from certain authentic legal websites like Jstor, Ebooks, and EBC Book Reader etc.

MAIN CONTENT

WHAT IS A PIL? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM A WRIT PETITION?

WHAT IS PIL?

“Public interest litigation (PIL) in India can serve as a vehicle for creating and enforcing rights and is critical to the sustenance of democracy.”[6]

“Public Interest Litigation” is basically a litigation endeavour to acquire public interest and elucidate accessibility of justice to socially deprived people. As aforementioned it was launched in India by Justice P.N. Bhagwati.

WHAT IS WRIT PETITION?

According to “Black’s law dictionary”-

“A precept in writing, couched in the form of a letter, running in the name of the king, president, or state, issuing from a court of justice, and sealed with its seal, addressed to a sheriff or other officer of the law, or directly to the person whose action the court desires to command, either as the commencement of a suit or other proceeding or as incidental to its progress, and requiring the performance of a specified act, or giving authority and commission to have it done.”

In simpler words, writ is a “formal written order” emanated by “a body with administrative or judicial powers”.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PIL AND WRIT PETITION

1. Writs are issued by individuals or institution for their own good whereas PIL is a plea registered “for easing out any undue botheration or inconvenience faced by the public at large”

2. Writs can be issued under article 32 and 226 but there isn’t any section under which a person/party/organisation can file a PIL, it’s basically to affluence the discomfort caused to the public.

3. In Writs the attestations are rigidly examined whereas in PILs the attestations are narrowly looked.

4. Writs can only be issued by the discontented part whereas anyone one can file a PIL.

5. In writs the arguments are of private interest but in case of PIL the argument is of public interest.

HOW PIL BENEFITS THE CITIZENS OF INDIA?

Robert Coog once stated –

“The public’s perception of the quality of justice they received from the sub-ordinate courts. These very liberal policies (By which he meant the PILs) and writ policies encourage that the Justice ultimately flows from the High Courts and/or the Supreme Courts”.

PIL provide justice or can help people by allowing brave citizens, advocates and social welfare organisations to file suits on the behalf of poor people who cannot approach the courts. PIL gives more importance to right to equality, life and personality, which is ensured under part III of the Constitution of India. Before the 1980s, just the aggrieved party could move toward the courts for equity. After the emergency era i.e. after 1977 the high court contacted individuals and conceived a method for any individual of the public or NGO moving toward the court to look for legal remedy in situations where public interest is at stake. PIL is stressed over the affirmation of the interests of a individual or group of individuals who are either the overcomers of administrative issue, abuse, or social maltreatment or denied their authentic rights and who are not in a circumstance to push toward the court for the pay of their complaints due to the absence of resources or ignorance or their burdened social and financial position.

In “Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors[7]”, the “Supreme Court Of India” stated that

“The Courts exercising their power of judicial review found to its dismay that the poorest of the poor, depraved, the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, handicapped by ‘ignorance, indigence and illiteracy’ and other down trodden have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as ‘Social Interest Litigation’ or ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persona. It expanded its wings in course of time. The Courts in pro bono public granted relief to the inmates of the prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trial, maintenance of human dignity and covered several other areas.”

UNDER WHICH SECTION CAN A PERSON FILE A PIL?

A person can file a PIL under –

· Article 32 (2)

· Article 226

ARTICLE 32(2)

According to Article 32 (2)

“The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part”.

In the case of Ram Singh vs, The State of Delhi[8]the Supreme Court of India perceived that under article 32 (2) it’s the responsibility of the Supreme Court that the fundamental rights of a citizen is kept radically and the violators should be severely punished.

ARTICLE 226

According to article 226,

“Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”

PIL can also be filed under Criminal Procedure Code’s sec 133

v EVOLUTION OF PIL IN INDIA

The Indian PIL is aforethought to be an ameliorated version of PIL of U.S.A. The “Emergency period” in India attested colonial rule in Indian legal system. The “Post emergency period” furnished a motive Supreme Court judges to freely overlook the impediments of “Anglo-Saxon procedure” in delivering access of justice to the citizens who are financially weaker.

Former to 1980 only the discontented part was competent of pleading for justice and seeking remedies for his injury and the other part was not eligible to constitute the discontented party. In simpler word, only the discontented party was having the locus standi to contest a case. The long-established view in consideration to locus standi in writ dominion was a person who has –

· Has suffered legal grievance by reason of infringement of his legal rights.

OR

· Is probable to bear a legal injury on grounds of infringements of his legal rights.

Thus prior to a party get hold of locus standi it’s bound to have a distinctive right which was profaned or was threatened to be profaned. It needs to be an “aggrieved” party in the perception that he was going to endure from injury, financial loss etc.

Although this whole scheme swapped” post emergency period” when the Supreme court intercepted the difficulty of retrieving justice by the poor through progressive changes and modifications. PIL appeared to be an outcome of an easy-going network enterprising judges, clairvoyants. This mode showed dapple difference between the old justice providing system. PIL is obligatory for refusal of laissez faire idea of traditional jurisprudence.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF A PIL?

1. EMENDATORY IN NATURE

Emendatory nature of PIL retreats from the conventional Locus Standi specification. It incidentally assimilated the propositions apotheosized in the part IV into part III of “The Indian Constitution’. By mounting the yearnings of the part IV of the Part III of “The Indian Constitution”, the Indian judiciary changed the orderly nature of “The Indian Law” into a zestful welfare.

2. REPRESENTATIVE ABIDING

The “Representative abiding” nature of the PIL can be taken in as a really inventive extension of the well approved well standing anomaly which permits the third party when the party himself cannot move to the Court.

3. NATIVE STANDING

The doctrine of “citizen/native standing” thus spots a notable growth of the “Court’s rule” from guardians of sole rights.

4. “NON-ADVERSARIAL” LITIGATION

Quoting what “The Supreme Court” said in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India[9]-

“We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public interest litigation is a completely different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an

CONDEMNATION OF PIL

The discussions over the restrictions on “Judicial activism” in the zone of PIL, have been robust. An exclusive member’s bill authorized as “Public Interest Litigation (Regulations) Bill,1996” was put forward in the “Rajya Sabha”. It stated that PIL instead of being used to plead justice was misused. It also stated that the cases involving PILs were prioritised than the others leading to the other cases being unheard. Nevertheless, the bill was adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief”. Non-adversarial litigation has two aspects.”

HOW HAS THE CONCEPT OF PIL DEVELOPED IN THESE YEARS?

AS A COMMUNAL CHANGE

PIL has been functioning as a principal contrivance of communal change. It has been functioning for the well-being of the community. The upheaval of this authorized instrument proved advantageous for India. PIL can be accepted as a great general ship to tackle the wrong existing in our society. It’s a conventional inventiveness towards the wellbeing of the community. As in the cases of –

1. Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [10]– “The Supreme Court” unleash the bonded laborers.

2. Murli S. Dogra v. Union of India [11]– The court forbidden smoking in public spaces.

3. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India [12]– The Court furnished guidelines for “rehabilitation and compensation” for working women who were rape survivors and who were not progressed and was rejected.

ROLE OF PIL IN ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION LAWS

A PIL can be issued in respect to Environment protection laws under the following circumstances-

1. Bringing about environmental pollution in any way and is likely to public suffer.

2. Causing infringement of fundamental “Human Rights” of poor by ignoring them.

3. Welshing in responsibility by Municipal corporation.

4. If there’s a dispute relating to the environmental issues and religious duties etc.

CONCLUSION

It would be suitable to end by restating Cunningham –

“Indian PIL might be phoenix: a whole new creative arising out of ashes of the old order”

PIL constitutes the initial attempts by a “Developing common law country” to smash away from the lawful expansionism preserved for ages. It opposed the supposition that more western the “law” is the superior it must slog for economic and community evolution; such regulations generate I the so-called “developing states”. The transfer from legal diversity was brought about by the disgruntlement with formal legal structure.

In India, nevertheless instead of looking for justice. The commute as we have seen considerable and structural. It has completely changed the traditional judicial role as to authorize the court to deliver justice within the scope of the general citizens. In, quintessence, the PIL evolves an unhackneyed jurisdiction of the answerability of the state for fundamental and legalized infringements unfavourably affecting the engrossments of the weaker section of the society. We may conclude with quoting what a judge once said- “The judicial activism gets its highest bonus when it orders wipe some tears from some eyes.”

This article has been written by,

Sanket, Content writer, Legalinsight.in

Symbiosis Law School.

__________________________________________________________

[1] Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay V. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors [1976] Insc 46; Air 1976 Sc 1455 [2] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1369) [3] Vishaka and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 [4] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [1987] 4 SCC 463 [5] Rural Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India [1996] AIR 1996 SC 1446-4 [6] Holladay, Z., 2012. Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, [7] Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors J.T. 2003 (7) S.C. 312 [8] Ram Singh vs The State Of Delhi 1951 AIR 27 [9] People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 S.C. 1473 [10] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 549 [11] Murli S. Deora V. Union Of India AIR 2001 SCW 4505 [12] Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India 1995 SCC (1) 14