Abstract
The legal system now uses public interest litigation (PIL) as a tool to help courts confront social injustices and protect fundamental rights. This paper examines the function of PIL in India, charting its evolution and evaluating its social effects. Starting with a definition and context the research paper examines the aspects and key laws that support PIL with a focus on Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution of India. By analyzing the landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, this paper sheds light on how judicial interpretations have influenced the evolution of PILs in India. It also delves into the changes brought about by PILs and their efforts to address human rights violations in India concerning violence, terrorism, violence against women and children as well as bonded labor. This extensive research underscores the significance of PIL in advancing justice and fairness, in India while acknowledging the necessity for improvements to enhance its efficiency and accessibility.
Keywords
Public Interest Litigation, PIL’s, justice, human right violations, impact on society.
Introduction
Public interest litigations in India have become a significant part of Indian constitutional law, addressing human rights violations and environmental harms caused by government issues. The Backbay case, involving politicians Piloo Mody and Mrinal Gore, was one of the first cases dealing with this type of suit, addressing the haphazard development in the recently reclaimed Backbay Reclamation area. The defendants, who were accused of allotting prime real estate to preferred builders at a lower price, argued that the petitioners held no legal standing in the case. The judge, Jayantilal Gandhi J, upheld the petitioners’ standing, stating that they had an interest in the city’s development. He found the state’s reckless negligence in allotting plots without due process, such as holding public auctions or ensuring the correct market price. Nevertheless, the builders were permitted to keep their plots on the condition that they consented to pay an additional one-third of the allotment value to the exchequer. This case preceded the development of PIL jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court in later years.
Research methodology
This paper is a descriptive type and for the purpose of this study, a historical analysis of PIL in India has been done with reference to secondary sources. The type of research used in the study is secondary research, using books, journals, and website information.
Literature Review
By referring to the book The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, I understood the history and background of PILs in India and their development from the historical perspective.
Next, the article ‘Courting the people: the rise of public interest litigation in post-emergency India’, also explores the historical rise of PILs in India.
From the article ‘Protection of Human Rights through Public Interest Litigation in India’, I learned about the effect that PILs have had on the enforcement of human rights and their protection in the Indian landscape.
Next, the article ‘Promises and Perils of Public Interest Litigation in India’ enlightened me of the issues that plague the system of PILs in India.
The cases referred by me show the process that the courts follow in disposing of the cases of PILs.
History
‘The courts have to innovate new methods and strategies to provide access to justice to large masses of people who are denied basic human rights, to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning’.
- Justice PM Bhagwati
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are a form of judicial proceedings that are handled by the High Courts and the Supreme Court in terms of the constitutional provisions of articles 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 (High Courts) writ petitions. Contrary to private dispute resolutions that involve individual rights of entities, PILs are on issues that affect and harm the public. Such issues are flagrant human rights violations of a mass of people, like the inhumane treatment of prisoners in a prison, or they may also seek to justify the public policies that are being acted upon due to being present in the statutes or constitutional provisions. During the initial phase of the PILs evolution, the Supreme court explained its scope as follows-
‘Public Interest Litigation, as we conceive it, is essentially a cooperative or collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them’.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are a type of litigation where the petitioner looks to prevent an unjust state of affairs or any other illegitimate policy from affecting future events. The relief which is sought is corrective, not monetary, and may be derived from negotiation between courts and authorities. Judges play a vital role in organizing and shaping litigation, overseeing the implementation of relief measures, and interpreting laws more broadly than in traditional cases. PILs have led to changes in the Indian judicial landscape, shifting from traditional bilateral disputes to a more problem-solving approach, with characteristics typical of laws and rules.
Landmark Cases
The landscape of PILs was set up and explained in a few landmark judgements, a few of which are discussed below. These landmark cases are as follows:
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar –
1979 witnessed the Hussainara Khatoon case, which became a significant moment in the field of Indian public interest litigation. This matter brought out an unfortunate truth that so many undertrials were detained for more time than they would have been if convicted. The application was lodged by a journalist on behalf of Bihar prisoners whereby, it brought forth serious violation of human rights contained in articles 21 which deals with Right to Life & also article 22 which provides protection against arbitrary arrest and detention within the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, headed by Justice P.N Bhagwati ruled that right to speedy trial is part and parcel of Article 21. As a result, over 40,000 under-trial prisoners were released following this ruling and it triggered judicial and legislative reforms to protect the rights of the prisoners. Through PILs like this one, the judiciary played its proper role in addressing systemic issues thereby ensuring justice’s justness and fairness.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India –
The case of S.P. Gupta, otherwise known as the Judges’ Transfer Case, is a 1981 landmark judgment that stretched the realm of public interest litigation in India. The suit evolved from a protest against change and appointment of judges; thereby, raising vital issues concerning independence and openness of the judiciary. In its decision, the Apex Court also stressed that the judiciary must be independent to uphold democracy and rule of law. This pronouncement stated that any citizen may approach court for redress of public injuries or wrongs which further strengthened locus standi in PIL. The judgement set a precedent for more transparency in judicial appointments and transfers as well as strengthened PIL’s role in making judiciary accountable to people. It is often cited because it highlights such concepts like importance of independence in justice system and citizens right to go to court on matters relating to public welfare.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan –
In the year 1997, Vishaka case was a landmark verdict on sexual harassment of women at work. It came before the Supreme Court when different Women movements and NGOs filed it due to brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi in Rajasthan who was attacked for trying to stop her children from getting married while they were still young. Consequently, since the court recognized that there was no specific legislation on sexual harassment in workplaces, it laid down detailed principles which would fill this gap in the law. These directives are known as Vishaka Guidelines and required all workplaces to have compliant committees, take preventive measures and run awareness programs. The Court held that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights of gender equality under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Liberty). It was followed by other related legislations such as the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India –
The M.C. Mehta case series contains several landmark environmental judgments by the SC, one of which is the Ganga Pollution Case. The case was instituted in 1985 by environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta, who aimed at stopping any discharges of effluents into the River Ganga and also asserting that Indian environment must be protected and developed based on sustainability. A few examples of these principles include “the polluter pays” principle or sustainable development, which resulted in the closure and relocation of many pollution sources as well as setting up effluent treatment plants and ordering cleaning up of the river amongst other things. This case thus demonstrated through PIL how proactive judiciary could be in relation to environmental protection while it set the ground for subsequent cases relating to environment in India like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India case. These judgments have helped shape India’s environmental law, demonstrating how economic development can be exploited together with ecological sustainability.
Impact on Society
The advent of PILs in India has led to increased accessibility to human rights and reduced the misuse of power against the poor and illiterate by those that hold it. In the case of Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, 33 prisoners in police custody under the Bihar police were exposed to horrific torture in the form of acid being inserted into their eyes. When the PIL was brought in front of the Supreme Court of India, it rescinded the trial of the blinded prisoners and condemned the actions of the police, bringing action against the policemen who were guilty of the crime. In this case, the court affirmed the existence of the free legal aid as one of the fundamental rights of any accused person. The judges of all the session courts throughout the country were directed to inform each such accused person of his constitutional right to the services of an advocate.
Thus, it is now clear to us that PILs were introduced to protect the poor, illiterate and ignorant people who could not move the court due to the lack of resources. Through the arms of PIL, the court seeks to protect its benefactors in the following ways –
- By creating a new set of fundamental rights, which include the right to legal aid, dignity, education, housing, health facilities, right against torture, sexual harassment, servitude, and so on emerge as fundamental rights.
- By improving the accessibility of justice. This is done by relaxing the standard of locus standi. Any person with a vested interest in the situation can approach the court.
- By creating new types of reliefs under a court’s writ jurisdiction. For instance, the judiciary has the authority to grant temporary compensation for governmental misconduct.
- By monitoring the places of human right violations like jails, women’s protective homes, mental asylums and the like. Through this invigilation, the courts seek a gradual improvement in the management and administration of these institutes.
- By conceiving newer methods of inquiry. In most cases, the court appoints its own commissions for enquiry. It also takes the help of the National Human Rights Commission and the Central Bureau of Investigation or its experts to investigate into the human right violations involved in the case.
PILs are an important instrument for enforcing the protection of the fundamental rights of individuals. They are used to provide relief against violations like custodial violence, terrorism and insurgency, violence against women and children, bonded labour, etc.
- Custodial violence –
The human rights of prisoners and those in custody have been protected in various cases. Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar secured the release of mentally ill patients from Bihar jails, while Parmanad Katara v. Union of India established that every injured person is entitled to medical care. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra issued guidelines for the questioning and guarding of women prisoners, following a PIL brought to the court after 5 women were subjected to custodial violence.
- Terrorism and Insurgency –
In Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh v. State of Punjab, an advocate was abducted and killed in Punjab, and the Supreme Court ordered the Punjab Government to pay the parents of the deceased. In Ranjit Kumar v. Secretary of Home Affairs, Punjab, the court ordered a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the parents of a person killed in a criminal conspiracy by the Punjab Police. In Sudip Majumdar v. State of M.P., In Madhya Pradesh, 81 tribal persons died because of Army Test Firing Range, which is shut down following a PIL. The Supreme Court was informed about many a villager dying in specific Nagaland villages due to random firing by para-military forces through a PIL. Therefore, the court ordered another judicial assessment of the event.
- Violence against women and children –
Various PILs highlighting women’s issues have been brought forward to the courts, especially with the growth of investigative journalism bringing out the issues like dowry harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination and the development of women’s movements. In the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women ‘s Forum v. Union of India, six domestic servants were sexually assaulted by seven army personnel while on a train. The court laid down extensive guidelines for the protection of rape victims, involving legal aid, anonymity, compensation and rehabilitation. In the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the court held that the sexual harassment of a female in the workplace impedes the individuals fundamental right to equality and dignity. They found that the laws in India did not provide sufficient protection against this issue and laid down 12 guidelines to enforce the protection of these rights in the workplace. A news article concerning seasoned convicts in Kanpur jail sexually abusing minors caught the Supreme Court’s attention in 1981. The court instructed the District Judge of Kanpur to visit the jail and submit a report. The report confirmed that youngsters had been victims of sodomy. Consequently, the court ordered the children to be released from custody and placed in a children’s home. No penalties were imposed on the jail’s officials. The child abuse at Delhi’s Tihar Jail was made public by another Public Interest Litigation. A PIL was also filed on the sexual exploitation of minors in Orissa prisons.
- Bonded labour –
Most of the PILs on the issue of bonded labour seek to implement the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The Act makes the act of bonded labour illegal, and it has been abolished at least on paper since the enactment of the Act. The first major Public Interest Litigation on this issue was the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, in 1981. The case demanded the identification, release, and rehabilitation of hundreds of bonded laborers working in Haryana’s stone quarries. The court subsequently issued 21 directives to the Haryana Government and monitored their implementation. In the case of Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., the Supreme court received a letter stating that several bonded workers had returned home for six months yet were to undergo rehabilitation. The Vigilance committee was set up for the rehabilitation of these poor workers. The PILs have been helpful in the implementation of the act. The inherent defect of the Act is that it only focuses on the release and rehabilitation of the workers. It has no provisions to punish the owners of such labour.
Suggestions
To improve the PIL system in India there have to be several strategic reforms. To begin with, it is necessary to subject PILs to more stringent scrutiny to avoid cases that are unnecessary, something that can be done through pre-screening and discouraging false claims by imposing fines. Strengthening accessibility through strong legal aid services and a simplified process can make it easy for marginalized populations to seek remedies. For trust-building purposes, public must monitor court orders implementation and encourage openness in the judiciary. Sustaining separation of powers by balancing judicial activism with clear guidelines is only possible when media takes up its rightful role thereby transforming citizens into informed citizenry. Responsible media coverage and public awareness campaigns can foster an informed citizenry. By partnering with NGOs & involving them in public consultations, civil society actors can contribute towards better functioning of PILs while making sure these are inclusive at the same time.
Conclusion
India’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has been a game changer in terms of ensuring justice, human rights protection and dealing with social disparities. Initially, PIL was a judicial innovation meant to make the legal system more accessible to marginalized communities; it has however since evolved into an effective tool for advancing social change and reforming laws. Through constitutional interpretation through the Judiciary and case-law such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the range of PIL has widened significantly. In conclusion, Public Interest Litigation has profoundly influenced the Indian legal system, empowering citizens and fostering a more just and equitable society. For this reason its continued evolution and application are key to address new challenges which lie ahead while keeping justice open for all thereby reinforcing the spirit behind the Indian constitution.
Works Cited
Books
Choudhry, Sujit, et al. The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Articles
Singh, Parmanand. “Protection of Human Rights through Public Interest Litigation in India.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 42, no. 2/4, pp. 263–283, 2000.
Bhuwania, Anuj. “Courting the people: the rise of public interest litigation in post-emergency India.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 34, no. 2: 314-335, (2014).
Cases:
- Piloo Mody v State, Miscellaneous Petition No 519/1974 (unreported).
- Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., 1982 AIR 149, 1981 SCR (Supp) 87.
- Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997 (6) SCC 241, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., 1988 SCR (2) 530, 1988 SCC (1) 471.
- Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1982 AIR 1008, 1982 SCR (2) 38.
- Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, (1982) 2 SCC 583.
- Parmanad Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039.
- Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378.
- Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 1 SCC 616, and (1996) 4 SCC 742.
- Navkiran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 4 SCC 591.
- Ranjit Kumar v. Secretary of Home Affairs, Punjab, 1996 (2) SCALE 51.
- Sudip Majumdar v. State of M.P. , (1996) 5 SCC 368.
- PUCL v. Union of India, 1996 (3) SCALE 5.
- Delhi Domestic Working Women ‘s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14.
- Munna v. State of UP, (1982) 1 SCC 545.
- Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration, 1987 (2) SCALE 276.
- M.C. Mehta v. State of Orissa, W.P. (Cr) 1504 of 1984 (Unreported).
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 38.
- Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1099; (1984) 4 SCC 161.
Author:
Neel Kulkarni
O.P. Jindal Global University
June 2024