PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganised consumers, citizens who were passionate about the environmental issues, etc.

Public interest Litigation (PIL) implies litigation brought in a court of law, for the preservation of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, Constructional dangers etc. Any situation where the interest of public at large is impacted can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.

A new age of the PIL movement was ushered by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India.

In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court.

By this ruling PIL became a strong tool for the execution of “public duties” if executive conduct or misdeed resulted in public damage. And as a consequence any citizen of India or any consumer organisations or social action groups can now approach the top court of the nation seeking legal remedies in any situations where the interests of general public or a segment of the public are at risk.

Justice Bhagwati contributed a lot to ensure that the idea of PILs was properly enunciated. He did not stress on the adherence of procedural formalities and even considered simple letters from public-minded persons as writ petitions.

The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors held :- “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in her private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.” Thus, a private interest issue can equally be considered as public interest case.

M.C Mehta vs. Union of India: In a Public Interest Litigation launched against Ganga water pollution so as to avoid any further contamination of Ganga water. Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: The ruling of the case acknowledged sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21. The recommendations also called for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Factors Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India

The nature of the Indian Constitution. India has a codified constitution which through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) offers a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens and between citizens inter-se.

India has some of the most progressive social legislations to be found anywhere in the world whether it is pertaining to bonded labour, minimum salaries, land ceiling, environmental protection, etc. This has made it simpler for the courts to haul up the executive when it is not doing its obligations in protecting the rights of the poor as per the law of the nation.

The liberal interpretation of locus standi where any individual can petition to the court on behalf of people who are economically or physically unable to come before it has benefited. Judges themselves have in certain circumstances started suo moto proceedings based on newspaper stories or correspondence received.

Although social and economic rights granted in the Indian Constitution under Part IV are not legally enforceable, courts have creatively incorporated these into basic rights therefore making them judicially enforceable.

Judicial initiatives to aid the poor and marginalised: For instance, in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Supreme Court put the burden of evidence on the respondent declaring it would regard every incidence of forced labour as a case of bonded labour unless shown differently by the employer. Similarly in the Asiad Workers decision case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati declared that anyone earning less than the minimum wage might approach the Supreme Court immediately without going via the labour commissioner and lower courts.

In PIL instances when the petitioner is not in a position to produce all the requisite evidence, either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or economically, courts have courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the bench.