PIL is the authority granted to the public by the courts through the judicial. To learn more about judicial review, continue reading.

Overview:

Public interest litigation (PIL) has grown in popularity in India, not only as an essential tool of lawful activism but as a means of obtaining replies from the public institutions that are frequently unreachable to the general public. PIL is a system of law in which law courts can begin and impose steps to defend any substantial public or overall interest that is being affected or is likely to be negatively affected by the activity of any organisation, publicly or privately.

PIL Aspects 

PIL entails a mixture of classicism associated with the legal system and functionalism associated with a tribunal and/or a different department system. PIL ignores formally using the judicial process. Its inception doesn’t necessitate filing a formal plea in the format prescribed and method with the court. Individuals or organisations demanding retribution could even send a card to the court, and if the courts find it is a suitable case, they can take measures. This is known as the higher courts’ epistolary jurisdiction.

Another new aspect of the PIL system is the consultation of solicitors or others to determine whether or not the judge’s decision has been followed. They could also be selected to head the necessary research into the referred/assigned specific instance.

The basic idea behind public interest litigation has existed for a long time, but it only gained traction in India in 2005. That year, a reputable legal firm filed a PIL against widespread corruption in India. PIL had become a tool for directing bureaucracy to address aspects of public significance that their elected officials had ignored, at least till they were on trial.

The Indian Supreme Court evaluated usage, concluding that good corporate governance cannot be accomplished by restricting activist judges, and court ruling cannot be alleviated in the face of threats faced by a misuse of power. Other lawsuits filed under these regulations have included a ban on women entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, rescue operations following the Muzaffarnagar riots, and issues relating to the mandatory testing of Aadhaar cards, among others. In brief, people have taken advantage of this situation to fight for equality and social justice before the law.

Who Is Eligible to File a Pil?

Any individual or organisation could file a PIL with their right, i.e. to safeguard or impose a right owed to them by the government, or in the best interests of a segment of society that is deprived or victimised and is unable to impose their privileges.

Just a person negotiating in good faith and with a considerable interest in the litigation, even so, will have locus stand to submit a PIL. Anyone confronting the Hon’ble Court for personal benefit, profit-making, political advantage, or any other ambiguous concern will be ignored.

Method  

PIL in India refers to a complaint brought to a High Court or lower court to impose a fair and equal public interest. These would be introduced by any citizen who lacks the legal validity to document such a case. Legal Services authorities such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and voluntary organisations also file such cases in the public interest when they believe there’s been an abuse of the trial system or when there are strong reasons to overturn a judgment by a government department or private entities that impact a large number of people. For example, Nav Nirman Trust v Union of India was filed against the creation of state assets by Parliament through statutory powers enacted without the involvement of Parliament. It ruled that article informs under Article 14 were arbitrary.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Guidelines are accessible on the Supreme Court of India’s webpage. It says, among other things, that some letter petitions that fall under certain classifications alone will normally be handled as PILs, such as petitions relating to environmental polluted air, disruption of the ecological system, drugs, food impurity, culture and heritage preservation, vintage items, forest and wildlife preservation, and other issues of common importance.

Public interest litigation can be classified into three major categories:

• Judicial intervention – Judicial intervention applies to the case in which the government’s policies are directly challenged in court.
• Policy transformation through legislation – Instances that attempt to improve the law through Parliament are examples of change in policy through legislation.
• Administrative changes are cases in which a governmental agency either creates a new strategy or refuses to enforce a previous policy (for instance, on the age limit).

Factors Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India

The Indian Constitution’s character is unique, defined by its written nature. It establishes a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens, as well as interactions among citizens themselves, primarily through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy)

India boasts some of the most progressive social legislations globally, covering areas like bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling, and environmental protection. These laws empower the courts to hold the executive accountable for upholding the rights of the underprivileged as mandated by the law

The broad interpretation of “locus standi,” where anyone can approach the court on behalf of those who may be economically or physically incapable of doing so, has been instrumental. In some instances, judges have taken the initiative to act suo moto based on newspaper articles or received letters

While the social and economic rights outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution are not legally enforceable, the courts have creatively incorporated them into fundamental rights, rendering them subject to judicial enforcement. For instance, Article 21’s “right to life” has been expanded to encompass the right to free legal aid, the right to live with dignity, the right to education, the right to work, freedom from torture, and protections against restraints and handcuffing in prisons

Judicial innovations aimed at assisting the poor and marginalized have been notable. In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Supreme Court shifted the burden of proof to the respondent, presuming every case of forced labor to be bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the employer. Similarly, in the Asiad Workers judgment, Justice P.N. Bhagwati ruled that anyone receiving less than the minimum wage could directly approach the Supreme Court without navigating the labor commissioner and lower courts

In cases of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) where the petitioner may not possess all the necessary evidence, either due to its volume or the social or economic vulnerability of the parties involved, the courts have appointed commissions to gather factual information and present it to the bench.

Certain Weaknesses of PIL

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) actions can sometimes create a dilemma involving conflicting rights. For instance, when a court orders the shutdown of a polluting industry, it may not adequately consider the well-being of the workers and their families who lose their means of livelihood

This situation could result in an excessive influx of frivolous PILs in the courts, often initiated by parties pursuing vested interests. Presently, PILs are utilized for corporate, political, and personal gains, extending beyond the realm of addressing issues faced by the impoverished and marginalized

Instances of judicial overreach by the judiciary in addressing socio-economic or environmental concerns may emerge through PILs

PIL cases related to exploited and disadvantaged groups have remained pending for extended periods. Excessive delays in the resolution of PIL cases could diminish the practical impact of many landmark judgments, relegating them to mere academic significance.

Genesis and Evolution of PIL in India: Some Landmark Judgements

The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) was initially introduced in India by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 through the case of Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai. The first notable PIL case, Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979), highlighted the deplorable conditions in prisons and the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners, establishing the right to speedy justice as a fundamental right that had been denied

This approach set a precedent for subsequent cases. Justice P.N. Bhagawati played a pivotal role in advancing the PIL movement with the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, wherein it was determined that “any member of the public or social action group acting in good faith” could invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under Article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) to seek redress for the violation of legal or constitutional rights of individuals who, due to social, economic, or other disadvantages, could not access the courts

This judgment empowered PIL as a potent tool for enforcing “public duties” whenever executive actions or misconduct caused harm to the public. Consequently, any Indian citizen, consumer group, or social action group gained the ability to approach the country’s highest court to seek legal remedies in cases affecting the general public or a specific segment of it

Justice Bhagwati’s contribution was significant as he emphasized the importance of clarifying PIL concepts, disregarding procedural technicalities, and even considering ordinary letters from public-minded individuals as writ petitions

The Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors established that, in certain situations, a petitioner who initially sought redress for a personal grievance could be recognized as acting in the public interest, furthering the cause of justice

Notable cases like M.C Mehta vs. Union of India addressed issues such as Ganga water pollution, allowing individuals with a genuine interest in safeguarding public health to petition the court, even if they weren’t riparian owners

In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the judgment recognized sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental constitutional rights, paving the way for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Conclusion

A PIL is an essential judicial aid, particularly for safeguarding anyone unable to reach the courts independently. They are among the most popular ones in judicial proceedings, especially in legal litigation. The court system has tried to standardise PIL regulations to avoid PILs from being filed in the public interest or the best interests of the poor, disabled, or disadvantaged. Even so, there were several instances where people used PILs to further their agendas. As a result, courts must proceed to exercise caution to make sure that PILs aren’t abused.

FAQ

Read More

• Public Interest Litigation in USA