Public Interest Litigation means any law action brought about by an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization, not directly involved in a case, to initiate legal action in public interest. Under the mechanism, any individual who believes that a matter concerning the welfare of the general public requires attention, can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 or the High Courts under Article 226. The term though not defined in any statute or any case, finds its legitimacy in judgements delivered by different judges in different cases. Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati are credited for shaping the concept into what it is today. The author of this paper critically analyses the concept of Public Interest Litigation, its origin, and its effectiveness in bringing about social change. Various loopholes have been identified and recommendations have been made.
Keywords: Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Activism, Judicial Overreach, Social Change, Marginalised, Writ-Petition.
INTRODUCTION
Ever since the advent of legal knowledge in India, which stems from ancient scriptures like the Vedas, Dharma-sutras, and Manu-smritis, the Indian legal knowledge system has been continuously ameliorating itself to include legal principles, doctrines, statutes, and legislation striving to bring about positive change in the society.
One such mechanism, Public Interest Litigation found its way into the Indian Jurisprudence in the 1980s. The term is an amalgamation of two words, “Public Interest” and “Litigation”. It refers to any legal proceeding initiated in a court of law that addresses issues concerning the overall welfare and interests of the general public.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY defines the concept as, “A legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”
In contemporary times, the concept has evolved into a formidable tool for presenting cases that encompass social, environmental, and political issues before the court of law, wielding a profound impact on society. By providing a legal avenue to address matters of public concern, it has become instrumental in shaping societal discourse and fostering social change.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research has been done with the help of doctrinal research. Various secondary sources including research articles, journals, websites, and case laws have been referred to. The researcher has used the descriptive and explanatory research methodology to explain the concept of Public Interest Litigation and its evolution in India.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND ORIGIN
The concept traces its roots to American Jurisprudence. Initially, litigation was a prerogative of the aggrieved who could afford the hefty amount involved in the initiation and continuation of a court trial. The marginalized sections of society including the poor, racial minorities, environment enthusiasts, and unorganized consumers found no representation in courts and thus, remained devoid of redressal of their issues.
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the U.S. Federal Court issued a groundbreaking ruling related to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, mandating all states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who were unable to afford their own. Consequently, the first legal aid clinic was established in New York in 1876 to address the problems faced by these segments. Additionally, the 1960s in the United States of America witnessed various civil unrest movements aimed at bringing about reforms in the working of various social institutions. One such reform movement was the establishment of a “Public Interest Law”.
This law aimed at providing legal representation to all the sections of society whose problems remained underrepresented before the court of law. Prof. Abram Chayes first coined the term “Public Interest Litigation” to mean court cases seeking social change, which articulated public norms of governance and enforcement of these norms. It was different from traditional litigation in the sense that while traditional litigation could only be brought about by the aggrieved party, PIL was a collaborative effort to bring social changes in society to make it more just, fair, and inclusive. It provided a voice to the voiceless communities who had no knowledge and resources to be able to access justice through legal pathways.
ORIGIN IN INDIA
In India, the concept of Judicial Activism laid the foundation for building the edifice of Public Interest Litigation. Judicial Activism refers to the active engagement of the judiciary in safeguarding citizens’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the constitutional and legal framework of the country. By exercising its powers under the given doctrine, the judiciary can actively review legislation, address administrative issues, and formulate policies aimed at serving the interests of the general public. The pioneering efforts for the evolution of PIL in India can be attributed to Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati.
In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment, opined that the adjective aspect of jurisprudence primarily addresses the legal concerns of less privileged individuals, including the rural poor, urban laypersons, and vulnerable segments of society, who may perceive the law as an additional source of intimidation. He advocated for the poor and underprivileged and gave many judgments acting as a crusader for social justice and equality.
The first reported case of Public Interest Litigation in India was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. Upon a shocking revelation through one of the newspaper articles about the incarceration of innocent women, children, and undertrials for a term longer than that of the punishment upon conviction, a Hon’ble bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice P. N. Bhagwati opined that it is a lamenting shame on the Judicial system that keeps innocent individuals behind bars without the commencement of trials. The case established the Right to free and speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution and reiterated the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, more than 40000 under-trial prisoners were released.
EVOLUTION THROUGH CASE LAWS
It is pertinent to note that Public Interest Litigation as a notion has not been defined in any statute or any act. It has mostly found its legitimacy in the judgments ruled by different judges in different cases. Since the 1980s, there have been several case laws that have contributed to the shaping of Public Interest Litigation into what it stands today.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
- The case, also known as the “First Judges Case” was one of the three landmark cases that paved the way for the formation of the Collegium system to appoint judges in India. It dealt with a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Government for non-appointment and transfer of judges and questioned the constitutional validity of the procedure followed for the appointment of the judges.
- Apart from this, it was also a major milestone in the development of PIL in India. Initially, only the aggrieved could file a PIL in the court. The case, however, widened its scope to include, not only the aggrieved but any person who can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Article 32 and Article 226 respectively, on behalf of the aggrieved.
- Through the efforts of Justice Bhagwati, PIL became a significant instrument to ensure the enforcement of “public duties” where inefficient executive action was a cause of public misery. As a result, PIL can now be filed by any individual, group of individuals, or organization on any issue that is in the interest of the public at large.
- Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors.
- The case brought about another change like PIL. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgement, opined that, in instances where an applicant may have privately approached the court for redressal of a private issue, if the court however believes it to be in the interest of the public at large then such a petition can also be dealt as a PIL. Therefore, a case involving private interests can also be considered a matter of public interest.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
- Under article 32 of the Indian Constitution, M. C. Mehta filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing against the pollution of river Ganga by the tanneries in Kanpur who contended that they were not discharging waste into the Ganga rather, into the municipal drains, hence, it was the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation to avoid mixing of the two.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in Mehta’s Favor and opined that even though he was not directly affected by the pollution of Ganga, he could raise the matter in court to ensure the implementation of statutory provisions since he is interested in the welfare of the people who might be directly affected by the pollution of the river.
- Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
- The case involved Banwari Devi, a countryside woman and social worker who worked against the performance of child marriage in her village. During one such campaign of the marriage of an infant, she had an altercation with the perpetrators who in, revengeful spite got her gang-raped. The trial court however acquitted the culprits for not being guilty.
- Following this, women and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, contending the infringement of Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision held that women had the right of freedom to work safely at workplaces. Consequently, certain guidelines called the “Vishakha guidelines” were set up by the court to deal with situations involving sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
- Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
- The case involved the death of a scooter rider who was struck by a fast-moving car. Upon reaching the hospital, medical professionals declined to provide treatment and directed the individual to a facility located 20 kilometres away, which was equipped to handle medico-legal cases. As a result, the patient succumbed to their injuries.
- A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court contending allowance of dismissal of legal formalities in medical cases involving life-threatening injuries. The Supreme Court expressed the view that Article 21 of the Constitution places an obligation on the state to safeguard life. Therefore, every doctor, regardless of whether they work in a government hospital or elsewhere, is professionally bound to provide their services with appropriate expertise to preserve life. The judgment made it mandatory for doctors to provide medical assistance to the suffering in all circumstances.
IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS
Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a potent instrument for social transformation in India, ushering in a paradigm shift by not only providing recourse for the aggrieved few but by extending the doors of the courtroom to the public at large. This mechanism ensures that justice is dispensed equitably, irrespective of one’s background, thereby democratizing access to justice.
It has played a pivotal role in addressing systemic issues that necessitate government intervention, encompassing concerns ranging from environmental challenges to social injustices and even minor inconveniences. By bringing matters of public importance to the court’s attention, PIL enables the judiciary to deliberate on issues that have broader societal implications.
It has also made enforcement of fundamental rights, an easy task. By acting as a safeguard, it ensures that recourse is provided when one’s fundamental rights have been infringed. Additionally, it keeps a check on the abuse of power by governmental or private entities ensuring that the actions taken by them are by the law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional rights to life and personal liberty, as outlined in Article 21, encompass the right to travel abroad. Therefore, the government cannot curtail this right without adhering to the proper legal procedures.
There has been an increasing sense of civic duty among the citizens where they are empowered to bring instances of injustice and social problems to the court’s notice. The freedom to raise any social issue in court has made social institutions like prisons, asylums, and protective homes, more accountable for their job. M. C. Mehta is a prominent name in the filing of Public Interest Litigation cases in India. In 1996, he received the Goldman Environmental Prize for his persistent legal battles within the Indian judicial system against industries that contribute to pollution.
Public Interest Litigation often involves pro bono legal representation, making legal services accessible to those who may not afford them, thereby promoting equal access to justice. Thus, it has emerged as a powerful tool through which many social issues involving prisoner’s rights, environmental issues, health hazards, and road safety have been taken up by the court.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
Despite being an instrument of positive change in India, Public Interest Litigation has faced criticism for various reasons.
There has been an increase in the filing of frivolous cases with vested interests before the court of law. Cases often revolving around personal, private, and political gains have been brought up, wasting the time of the court. In Lalit Valecha v. Union of India, a petition was filed before the court contending that reporting the numbers of deaths during a calamity casts a negative impact on the minds of people and the same should thus, be curbed. The court subsequently, dismissed it.
Secondly, in trying to take up matters involving public interest, the courts have sometimes overstepped their boundaries leading to judicial overreach. In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing road safety, the Supreme Court prohibited the sale of alcohol in retail outlets, hotels, restaurants, and bars located within 500 meters of any national or state highway. The same was an example of judicial overreach since it’s the government who gets to decide the implementation of such laws. The court can merely advise the government to take up a matter related to public importance and not order it.
While striving to preserve the rights of one community, the rights of another may be compromised. For instance, while presiding over a PIL concerning the pollution of rivers and its impact on the lives of the people, the court may overlook the loss of livelihood that some workers may have to go through upon shutting down of factories.
By making it easier to approach the court of law, there has been an increase in the filing of petty cases which if nothing, add to the already existing burden of cases for the courts. In Pratyush Prasanna and Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi, the petitioner, without first inquiring under the Right to Information Act, 2005, moved the court to look into the funds allocated to the government of Delhi for COVID-19 relief. The court dismissed the petition and also levied a fine of Rs 50000 on him, for not having substantial proof before approaching the court.
REFORMS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
Public Interest Litigation with its own set of advantages and criticisms remains a bulwark for fostering social change in India. Certain suggestions, if implemented may help in refining the concept and demarcating its scope to include only genuine matters concerning public interest while frivolous cases can be set aside.
- Greater scrutiny should be imposed at the preliminary level to ensure that only cases which involve interest of the general public are taken up. Any case pertaining one’s personal interest should be dismissed at the very onset. Imposition of fine and punishment can be a deterrent for such people who bring up preposterous cases aimed at wasting time of the court.
- Greater accountability from lawyers can be helpful in reducing the number of frivolous PILs. Lawyers, while practicing greater ethics, should straightaway refuse to take up cases, which they believe are not related to public interest.
- Analysing past PIL decisions to trace their impact on social issues can be used as a benchmark to filter cases that genuinely need court’s consideration. An Amicus Curiae can also be appointed adding a new layer of objectivity to the process.
- While judiciary should play an active role towards ensuring social justice, it should also remain cautious of not overstepping its jurisdiction. Instances of judicial overreach should be highlighted and efforts should be made for their non-performance.
- Media can be a useful tool in curbing frivolous PIL cases. Petitions concerning abuse of PIL should also be telecasted as much as the ones bringing about social change so that there remains a fear of negative publicity among the masses.
- Citizens must be educated about judicious filing of PILs and how they can be used to effect positive change in the society.
CONCLUSION
In India, the genesis of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be traced to proactive judicial activism employed by the judiciary to ensure equitable justice for all. Spearheaded by the efforts of Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati, the mechanism has evolved into a potent tool for instigating social change in India. Through this trajectory, a spectrum of issues, ranging from matters of cleanliness, women’s safety, pollution, and health hazards have found their solution in the courts of law.
Hundreds of cases concerning matters of public interest are regularly brought up, through the filing of a PIL, fostering the trust of the common public in the judicial system of the country. While the mechanism has proved to be a boon for the marginalized section of society, it suffers from several loopholes. PILs are often misused by people to serve their interests instead of the public interest. Such frivolous PILs often waste courts’ time which already suffer from the pendency of millions of cases. Consequently, cases that genuinely need the court’s consideration are overlooked.
Several methods can be devised to ensure that only genuine cases find their way to the courts. These include greater accountability on the part of lawyers to take up only authentic public interest cases, imposition of fines and stricter punishments on anyone who tries to bring frivolous cases, greater scrutiny by appointing an Amicus Curiae, cautious behaviour showcased by judges to not overreach their jurisdiction and analysing past judgments to filter out genuine cases from frivolous ones. In this way, Public Interest Litigation shall prove to be effective in providing representation to the marginalized section of the society, the ones it is truly meant for.
EKTA DWIVEDI
Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur.
What’s up, after reading this remarkable post i am as well happy
to share my experience here with colleagues.