What Is A Public Interest Litigation?

A legal strategy for defending the interests of the broader public is known as public interest litigation (PIL). Public interest litigation seeks to deliver justice for underrepresented or disadvantaged persons and organizations, raising issues of general public concern. PIL is a method of strategically employing the law to bring about social change. Due to the Supreme Court's judicial activism, public interest litigation was first established in India. Justices V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N. Bhagwati are credited with creating the PIL concept. For instance, public interest litigation can be brought up in relation to bonded labor, crimes against women, food adulteration, environmental pollution, etc. 

 

•    Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the process of using the legal system to advance equality and human rights while also bringing up issues of broad public concern. It enables underprivileged and marginalized minorities to speak out in support of their basic human rights.

 

•    It essentially broadens the definition of "locus standi," or the authority to bring a legal claim or appeal. PILs' main objective is to protect the fundamental rights of people who are unable to represent themselves in court.

 

•    The person or thing that has been wronged is typically the one that seeks justice in the courts. However, anyone can file a PIL on behalf of the victims and can file a complaint or an appeal.

 

•    An NGO or socially concerned individual might advance a public cause by filing a PIL to seek legal remedies for a public wrong.

 

•    There are no laws or statutes that specify it. It was established in India by the judiciary when it decided to address concerns about violations of human rights in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

•    Justice Krishna Iyer first introduced the idea of public interest litigation in India in the case Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai in 1976.

 

•    Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the first PIL case to be publicly acknowledged, centered on the inhumane treatment of inmates awaiting trial and resulted in the release of more than 40,000 of them.

 

•    In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, Justice P.N. Bhagawati signaled the beginning of a new phase in the PIL movement.

 

•    Union of India Vs M.C. Mehta: In an effort to stop further pollution of the Ganga River, a Public Interest Litigation was initiated. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, who is not a riparian owner but is still concerned in safeguarding the lives of those who utilize Ganga water, is allowed to petition the court for the execution of statutory restrictions.

 

•    State of Rajasthan v. Vishaka: Sexual harassment was recognized as a breach of Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21 of the Constitution in the case's judgment. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redress) Act of 2013 was likewise ordered by the recommendations.

 

The public interest in general is the main focus of the PILs in India, as discussed. In the many years of its history, it has witnessed legal battles over issues including environmental protection, prisoner's rights, and road safety. PILs are typically filed in the cases listed below:

 

1.    A violation of the poor's fundamental human rights (cases involving the protection of fundamental rights, namely Article 21)

 

2.    The government's agenda, operations, and decision-making

 

3.    Issues with labor exploitation

 

4.    Women rights

 

5.    Religious and caste concerns

 

6.    Governance concerns and how public institutions operate: regional, national, and union

 

7.    Ecological concerns

 

8.    The cultural and historical issues

 

9.    Other issues with broad significance

 

•    Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, Parts III and IV, respectively, lay out a framework for regulating inter-se interactions between the state and its citizens.

 

•    India has some of the most progressive social policies in the world when it comes to topics like bonded labor, minimum wages, land limitations, environmental protection, and other challenges. As a result, the court has started to hold executives accountable when they don't uphold their obligations to defend the legal rights of the underprivileged.

 

•    A liberal interpretation of the locus standi allows judges to act "suo moto" based on letters and newspaper articles.

 

•    Courts have imaginatively interpreted the social and economic rights included in Part IV of the Constitution as Fundamental Rights even though they are not legally enforceable. For instance, under Article 21, the right to life has been extended to cover the rights to free legal assistance, to a dignified existence, to education, and to employment.

 

•    In PIL instances where the petitioner is unable to provide all pertinent evidence due to its volume or because the parties are socially or economically disadvantaged, courts have established commissions to gather information on the facts and present it to the bench.

 

•    An action for public interest may be brought against the State or Central Government, municipal authorities, but not a private individual.

 

•    The definition of a state is the same as that in Article 12 of the Constitution, and it includes the Indian Parliament, the governments and legislatures of each state, as well as any local or other authorities operating on Indian Territory or under the control of the Indian government.

 

•    In accordance with Article.12, the term "State" refers to the Indian Government, the Indian Parliament, the governments and legislatures of each State, as well as any local or other authority operating on Indian Territory or under the control of the Indian Government.

 

•    This landmark decision addressed the problem of in-custody abuse of female prisoners. In order to protect the women from additional stress and abuse, this led to a court decision allowing for separate police holding facilities for female offenders.

 

•    The local authorities were criticized in this January 12, 1988, verdict for permitting untreated sewage from Kanpur's tanneries to enter the Ganges.

 

•    In India, it marked the start of the green legal movement. Environmentalist M. C. Mehta filed a PIL against the Union of India on December 30, 1996, and as a result, Mathura refineries were subject to strict orders for contaminating the air near the Taj Mahal.

 

The Supreme Court challenged the disinvestment season that the NDA-1 government started in 2001 to sell a 51% interest in BALCO (Bharat Aluminum Company Limited). Significantly, the Supreme Court declared in its ruling on December 10, 2001, that PILs are not a fix-all solution. There have been more and more PIL abuse cases in recent years. Therefore, it is necessary to reiterate the conditions under which a Petitioner may resort to a PIL and the Court may consider it.

 

•    In 2001, the judiciary made the decision to respect the authority of the executive branch and its policy choices, but a decade later, the Supreme Court made the decision to intervene in what was dubbed as one of the largest scams in post-independence India.

 

•    The Supreme Court criticized the practice of "first-come, first-served" as the basis for allocating natural resources on February 2, 2012. The court suggested holding auctions to determine allocations.

 

•    The UPA government was humiliated by this, which was the outcome of separate PILs filed by Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan. Even though some viewed it through the lens of "judicial overreach," the court still revoked 122 2G licenses.

 

•    In response to a PIL brought by attorney Indira Sawhney, the Supreme Court established 27% quota for disadvantaged groups in positions and services provided by the Government of India on November 16, 1992.

 

•    The court defended its justification for making reservations by referencing the lengthy Varna system. The court also stated that once a single group is sufficiently represented in society, such a system should not last longer than ten years.

 

Prohibitions on the selling of alcohol close to highways, the NCR's ban on the sale of fireworks, the repeal of Section 377, etc.

 

•    PIL aims to give common people access to the courts so they can seek legal redress.

 

•    PIL is a vital weapon for advancing the balance of justice and the rule of law, protecting the rule of law, and transforming society.

 

•    PILs were developed with the goal of increasing the impoverished and marginalized population's access to justice.

 

•    It is a vital instrument for giving persons who have been denied human rights access to them.

 

•    Everyone has access to justice thanks to it. Anyone who is able to do so may file petitions on behalf of others who lack the capacity or means to do so.

 

•    It facilitates judicial control over state institutions including jails, asylums, and foster homes, among others.

 

•    It is an essential tool for applying the idea of judicial review.

 

•    Increased public participation in the judicial review of administrative action is made possible by the advent of PILs.

 

PIL has received criticism for the following reasons:

•    PILs have been misused for personal gain despite appearing to serve the public good. Secret PILs filed in the name of the public interest have forced the suspension of numerous admirable initiatives.

 

•    This has been utilized to put in place a framework for conflicting rights. The interests of the workers and their families who lose their source of income, for instance, may not be taken into consideration when a court orders the closure of a polluting firm.

 

•    Public interest litigation (PIL) is a practice that frequently results in court overreach. Because of this, the judiciary now holds a greater amount of power.

 

•    Little has been done by the courts to stop the filing of fake PILs. This adds to the court system's already excessive workload. The amount of bogus PILs that are still pending in court affects the status of socioeconomically significant PILs.

 

•    The fact that PIL cases only offer symbolic justice is a major problem with them. Two approaches can be used to interpret symbolism. First, as the Vishakha recommendations demonstrated, the actual enactment of laws took far too long, making court orders useless. Second, DPSPs are changed to FRs when the state is unable to enforce them. When rights are established that cannot be enforced, the idea of fundamental rights is undermined.

 

•    Because it offers a route to justice for those who are marginalized in society and may not even be aware of their rights, PIL plays a vital role in the civil justice system.

 

•    A decent strategy for the judge to strike a balance is to allow legitimate PILs while prohibiting pointless ones. This can be achieved by restricting PIL to circumstances in which a disability interferes with access to justice.

 

•    A protected cost order, legal help, pro bono litigation, support for PIL civil society, and amicus curiae briefs are a few examples of financial incentives that could be provided in exchange for genuine PIL lawsuits not being discouraged. It's also worth looking at this possibility.

 

The founding fathers of the constitution wanted to establish a just and fair society. The preamble of the constitution calls for a free India to safeguard political, social, and economic equity. PILs have helped in the realization of goals to some extent. To continue serving its purpose, its sacredness must be preserved.