UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

MYSORE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF JUSTICE

Public Interest Litigation
A Report

Submitted byX sem V Year

Mysore University School of Justice
Manasagangotri, Mysore
Submitted toCourse Teacher
Mysore University School of Justice
Manasagangotri, Mysore

Date-

Signature of Student

Signature of Teacher
This Assignment is submitted in partial fulfillment of the Curriculum
requirements of the BA.LLB V Year Integrated Course

CONTENTS

Introduction1
Evolution of PIL.....2
Concept of PIL...4
Phases of PIL..6
Aspects of PIL.9
Important features of PIL..10
Subjects of PIL..11
Procedure for filing PIL.13
PIL as an instrument of social change...15
Merits & Demerits of PIL..16
Case study..18
Conclusion..23
Bibliography...24

INTRODUCTION
The term Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is composed of two words; Public
Interest and Litigation. The words Public Interest mean an expression which
indicates something in which the general public or the community at large has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. The word litigation on the other hand means a legal action,
including all legal proceedings initiated in a Court of Law with the purpose of
enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Hence, lexically the expression Public
Interest Litigation denotes a legal action initiated in a court of law for the
enforcement of public interest where the rights of an individual or a group have
been affected.

Public Interest has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition)
as under:"Public Interest - Something in which the public, the community at large, has some
pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests
of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national
government...."

Advanced Law Lexicon has defined `Public Interest Litigation' as under:"The expression `PIL' means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of
the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected."

EVOLUTION OF PIL
The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is in consonance with the
principles enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and
deliver prompt social justice with the help of law. Prior to 1980s, only the
aggrieved party could personally knock the doors of justice and seek remedy for
his grievance and any other person who was not personally affected could not
knock the doors of justice as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved party. In other
words, only the affected parties had the locus standi (standing required in law) to
file a case and continue the litigation and the non affected persons had no locus
standi to do so. And as a result, there was hardly any link between the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of Indian Union and the laws made by the
legislature on the one hand and the vast majority of illiterate citizens on the other.
However, all these scenario gradually changed when the post emergency Supreme
Court tackled the problem of access to justice by people through radical changes
and alterations made in the requirements of locus standi and of party aggrieved.
The splendid efforts of Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer were
instrumental of this juristic revolution of eighties to convert the apex court of India
into a Supreme Court for all Indians. And as a result any citizen of India or any
consumer groups or social action groups can approach the apex court of the
country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of general public or
a section of public are at stake. Further, public interest cases could be filed without
investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil litigation.
The first reported case of PIL, in 1979, focused on the inhuman conditions of
prisons and under trial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar1, the PIL
was filed by an advocate on the basis of the news item published in the Indian
Express, highlighting the plight of thousands of under trial prisoners languishing in
various jails in Bihar. These proceeding led to the release of more than 40, 000
under trial prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right
which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in
subsequent cases.
1 AIR 1979 SC 1360

In 1981, the case of Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar 2, exposed the brutalities of the
Police. Newspaper reports revealed that about 33 suspected criminals were blinded
by the police in Bihar, by putting acid into their eyes. Through interim orders, the
Supreme Court directed the State Government to bring the blinded men to Delhi
for medical treatment. It also ordered speedy prosecution of the guilty policemen.
The court also read right to free legal aid as a fundamental right of every accused.
Anil Yadav signalled the growth of social activism and investigative litigation.
In Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam3, the Supreme Court declared that
handcuffs and other fetters shall not be forced upon a prisoner while lodged in jail
or while in transport or transit from one jail to another or to the court or back.
Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as any other legal case and there have been
instances when even letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been taken
up as PILs and heard by the court.

2 AIR 1982 SC 1008

3 AIR 1995 3 SCC 743

CONCEPT OF PIL
In Indian law, public interest litigation means litigation for the protection of the
public interest. It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved
party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary, for the
exercise of the courts jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the
violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public interest
litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism.
However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court
that the petition is being filed for a public interest and not just as a frivolous
litigation by a busy body.
Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the necessary resources to
commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or
encroached upon. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed
suo moto or cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual.
In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India4, articulated the
concept of PIL as follows, Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a
person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any
constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any
constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal
wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate
class of persons by reasons of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any
member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or
writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental
rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32
seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or
determinate class of persons.
The rules of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting in a bonafide
manner and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of an Public Interest
4 AIR 1982 SC 149

Litigation will alone have the requisite locus standi and can approach the Courts to
wipe out any violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain, or private profit, or political motive, or any
oblique consideration.
The Supreme Court of India, in a case has iterated that 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 case can also be treated as public
interest case5.
In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors 6,
the Supreme Court held, The Courts exercising their power of judicial review
found to its dismay that the poorest of the poor, depraved, the illiterate, the urban
and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children, handicapped by
ignorance, indigence and illiteracy and other down trodden have either no access
to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as
Social Interest Litigation or Public Interest Litigation was evolved with a view
to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persona. It expanded
its wings in course of time. The Courts in pro bono publico granted relief to
the inmates of the prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trial, maintenance
of human dignity and covered several other areas. Representative actions, pro
bono publico and test litigations were entertained in keeping with the current
accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who
wish to bypass the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral
procedural shortcomings Pro bono publico constituted a significant state in the
present day judicial system. They, however, provided the dockets with much greater
responsibility for rendering the concept of justice available to the disadvantaged
sections of the society. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its necessity
cannot be overemphasized. The courts evolved a jurisprudence of compassion.
5 Indian Banks Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service
and Ors., J. T. 2004 (4) SC 587
6 [J.T. 2003 (7) S.C. 312]

Procedural propriety was to move over giving place to substantive concerns of the
deprivation of rights. The rule of locus standi was diluted. The Court in place of
disinterested and dispassionate adjudicator became active participant in the
dispensation of justice.

PHASES OF PIL
At the risk of over-simplification and overlap, the PIL discourse in India could be
divided, into three broad phases. One will notice that these three phases differ from
each other in terms of at least the following four variables: who initiated PIL cases;
what was the subject matter/focus of PIL; against whom the relief was sought; and
how judiciary responded to PIL cases.
In the first phasewhich began in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s
the PIL cases were generally filed by public-spirited persons (lawyers,
journalists, social activists or academics). Most of the cases related to the rights of
disadvantaged sections of society such as child labourers, bonded labourers,
prisoners, mentally challenged, pavement dwellers, and women. The relief was
sought against the action or non-action on the part of executive agencies resulting
in violations of FRs under the Constitution. During this phase, the judiciary
responded by recognising the rights of these people and giving directions to the
government to redress the alleged violations. In short, it is arguable that in the first
phase, the PIL truly became an instrument of the type of social
transformation/revolution that the founding fathers had expected to achieve
through the Constitution.
The second phase of the PIL was in the 1990s during which several significant
changes in the chemistry of PIL took place. In comparison to the first phase, the
filing of PIL cases became more institutionalised in that several specialised NGOs
and lawyers started bringing matters of public interest to the courts on a much
regular basis. The breadth of issues raised in PIL also expanded tremendously
from the protection of environment to corruption-free administration, right to
education, sexual harassment at the workplace, relocation of industries, rule of law,
good governance, and the general accountability of the Government. It is to be
noted that in this phase, the petitioners sought relief not only against the
action/non-action of the executive but also against private individuals, in relation

to policy matters, and regarding something that would clearly fall within the
domain of the legislature.7
The response of the judiciary during the second phase was by and large much
bolder and unconventional than the first phase. For instance, the courts did not
hesitate to come up with detailed guidelines where there were legislative gaps. 8
The courts enforced FRs against private individuals and granted relief to the
petitioner without going into the question of whether the violator of the FR was the
state. The courts also took non-compliance with its orders more seriously and in
some cases, went to the extent of monitoring government investigative
agencies and/or punishing civil servants for contempt for failing to abide by their
directions. The second phase was also the period when the misuse of PIL not only
began but also reached to a disturbing level, which occasionally compelled the
courts to impose fine on plaintiffs for misusing PIL for private purposes.
It is thus apparent that in the second phase the PIL discourse broke new grounds
and chartered on previously unknown paths in that it moved much beyond the
declared objective for which PIL was meant. The courts, for instance, took resort to
judicial legislation when needed, did not hesitate to reach centres of government
power, tried to extend the protection of FRs against non-state actors, moved to
protect the interests of the middle class rather than poor populace, and sought
means to control the misuse of PIL for ulterior purposes.
On the other hand, the third phasethe present phase, which began with the 21st
centuryis a period in which anyone could file a PIL for almost anything. It seems
that there is a further expansion of issues that could be raised as PIL, e.g. calling
back the Indian cricket team from the Australia tour and preventing an alleged
marriage of an actress with trees for astrological reasons. From the judiciarys
point of view, one could argue that it is time for judicial introspection and for
reviewing what courts tried to achieve through PIL. As compared to the second
phase, the judiciary has seemingly shown is unlikely to roll back the expansive
7 Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 405; Sarla Mudgal v. Union of
India (1995) 3 SCC 635
8 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011; Basu v. State of West Bengal AIR
1997 SC 610

scope of PIL, it is possible that it might make more measured interventions in the
future.
One aspect that stands out in the third phase deserves a special mention. In
continuation of its approval of the governments policies of liberalisation in Delhi
Science Forum, the judiciary has shown a general support to disinvestment and
development policies of the Government. What is more troublesome for students
of the PIL project in India is, however, the fact that this judicial attitude might be at
the cost of the sympathetic response that the rights and interests of impoverished
and vulnerable sections of society (such as slum dwellers and people displaced by
the construction of dams) received in the first phase. The Supreme Courts
observations such as the following also fuel these concerns:
Socialism might have been a catchword from our history. It may be present in the
Preamble of our Constitution. However, due to the liberalisation policy adopted by
the Central Government from the early nineties, this view that the Indian society is
essentially wedded to socialism is definitely withering away.
It seems that the judicial attitude towards PIL in these three phases is a response, at
least in part, to how it perceived to be the issue(s) in vogue. If rights of
prisoners, pavement dwellers, child/bonded labourers and women were in focus in
the first phase, issues such as environment, AIDS, corruption and good governance
were at the forefront in second phase, and development and free market
considerations might dominate the third phase. So, the way courts have reacted to
PIL in India is merely a reflection of what people expected from the judiciary at
any given point of time. If the judiciary deviates too much from the prevailing
social expectations, it might not command the public support that it requires to
sustain PIL.

ASPECTS OF PIL
1) Remedial in nature: Remedial nature of PIL departs from the traditional locus
standi requirements. It indirectly incorporated the principles enshrined in the Part
IV of the Constitution of India into Part III of the Constitution. By riding the
aspirations of part IV into part III of the Constitution, the Indian Judiciary had
changed the procedural nature of the Indian law into a dynamic welfare one.
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., etc were
the obvious examples of this change in nature of judiciary.
2) Representative Standing: Representative standing can be seen as a creative
expansion of the well-accepted standing exception which allows a third party to
file a habeas corpus petition on the ground that the injured party cannot approach
the court himself. And in this regard the Indian concept of PIL is much broader in
relation to the American concept. PIL is a modified form of class action.
3) Citizen Standing: The doctrine of citizen standing thus marks a significant
expansion of the courts rule, from protector of individual rights to guardian of the
rule of law wherever threatened by official lawlessness.
4) Non-Adversarial Litigation: In the words of the SC, in Peoples Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India9 We wish to point out with all the emphasis
at our command that public interest litigationis a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one
making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such
claim or resisting such relief. Non-adversarial litigation has two aspects.

9 AIR 1972 SC 1473

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF PIL

Through the mechanism of PIL, the courts seek to protect human rights in the
following ways:
1) By creating a new regime of human rights by expanding the meaning of
fundamental right to equality, life and personal liberty. In this process, the right to
speedy trial, free legal aid, dignity, means and livelihood, education, housing,
medical care, clean environment, right against torture, sexual harassment, solitary
confinement, bondage and servitude, exploitation and so on emerge as human
rights. These new reconceptualised rights provide legal resources to activate the
courts for their enforcement through PIL.
2) By democratization of access of justice. This is done by relaxing the traditional
rule of locus standi. Any public spirited citizen or social action group can approach
the court on behalf of the oppressed classes. Courts attention can be drawn even by
writing a letter or sending a telegram. This has been called epistolary jurisdiction.
3) By fashioning new kinds of reliefs under the courts writ jurisdiction. For
example, the court can award interim compensation to the victims of governmental
lawlessness. This stands in sharp contrast to the Anglo-Saxon model of
adjudication where interim relief is limited to preserving the status quo pending
final decision. The grant of compensation in PIL matters does not preclude the
aggrieved person from bringing a civil suit for damages. In PIL cases the court can
fashion any relief to the victims.
4) By judicial monitoring of state institutions such as jails, womens protective
homes, juvenile homes, mental asylums, and the like. Through judicial invigilation,
the court seeks gradual improvement in their management and administration. This
has been characterized as creeping jurisdiction in which the court takes over the
administration of these institutions for protecting human rights.

5) By devising new techniques of fact-finding. In most of the cases the court has
appointed its own socio-legal commissions of inquiry or has deputed its own
official for investigation. Sometimes it has taken the help of National Human
Rights Commission or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or experts to inquire
into human rights violations. This may be called investigative litigation.

SUBJECTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Public Interest Litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental and other legal
rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal redressal system or
otherwise in a disadvantageous position, due to their social or economic
background. Such litigation can be initiated only for redressal of a public injury,
enforcement of a public duty or vindicating interest of public nature. It is necessary
that the petition is not filed for personal gain or private motive or for other
extraneous consideration and is filed bona fide in public interest.
The following are the subjects which may be litigated under the head of Public
Interest Litigation:
(I) The matters of public interest: Generally they include(i) bonded labour matters
(ii) matters of neglected children
(iii) exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages to them (except in
individual cases)
(iv) matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Economically Backward Classes, either by co-villagers or by
police
(v) matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance,
drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and
wild life,
(vi) petitions from riot victims and
(vii) other matters of public importance.
(II) The matters of private nature:

(i) threat to or harassment of the petitioner by private persons,

(ii) seeking enquiry by an agency other than local police,
(iii) seeking police protection,
(iv) land lordtenant dispute
(v) service matters,
(vi) admission to medical or engineering colleges,
(vii) early hearing of matters pending in High Court and subordinate courts and
are not considered matters of public interest.
(III) Letter Petitions:
Petitions received by post even though not in public interest can be treated as writ
petitions if so directed by the Honble Judge nominated for this purpose. Individual
petitions complaining harassment or torture or death in jail or by police, complaints
of atrocities on women such as harassment for dowry, bride burning, rape, murder
and kidnapping, complaints relating to family pensions and complaints of refusal
by police to register the case can be registered as writ petitions, if so approved by
the concerned Honble Judge. If deemed expedient, a report from the concerned
authority is called before placing the matter before the Honble Judge for
directions. If so directed by the Honble Judge, the letter is registered as a writ
petition and is thereafter listed before the Court for hearing.

PROCEDURE FOR FILING PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(a) Filing
Public Interest Litigation petition is filed in the same manner, as a writ petition is
filed. If a PIL is filed in a High Court, then two (2) copies of the petition have to be
filed (for Supreme Court, then (4)+(1)(i.e.5) sets) Also, an advance copy of the
petition has to be served on the each respondent, i.e. opposite party, and this proof
of service has to be affixed on the petition.
(b) The Procedure
A Court fee of Rs. 50 , per respondent (i.e. for each number of party, court fees of
Rs 50) have to be affixed on the petition. Proceedings, in the PIL commence and
carry on in the same manner, as other cases. However, in between the proceedings
if the Judge feels that he may appoint the commissioner, to inspect allegations like
pollution being caused, trees being cut, sewer problems, etc. After filing of replies,
by opposite party, or rejoinder by the petitioner, final hearing takes place, and the
judge gives his final decision.
Against whom Public Interest Litigation can be filed
A Public Interest Litigation can be filed against a State/ Central Govt., Municipal
Authorities, and not any private party. The definition of State is the same as given
under Article 12 of the Constitution and this includes the Governmental and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States
and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of
the Government of India. According to Art.12, the term State includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislatures of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India.

Thus the authorities and instrumentalities specified under Art.12 are

The Government and Parliament of India
The Government and Legislature of each of the States
All local authorities
Other authorities within the territory of India or under the Government of India.
In Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal10, the Supreme Court held that other
authorities would include all authorities created by the Constitution of India or
Statute on whom powers are conferred by law.
However, Private party can be included in the PIL as Respondent, after making
concerned state authority, a party. For example- if there is a Private factory in
Delhi, which is causing pollution, then people living nearly, or any other person
can file a PIL against the Government of Delhi, Pollution Control Board, and
against the private factory. However, a PIL cannot be filed against the Private party
alone.

10 AIR 1967 SC 1857

PIL AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CHANGE

PIL is working as an important instrument of social change. It is working for the
welfare of every section of society. The innovation of this legitimate instrument
proved beneficial for the developing country like India. PIL has been used as a
strategy to combat the atrocities prevailing in society. Its an institutional initiative
towards the welfare of the needy class of the society. In Bandhu Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India11, SC ordered for the release of bonded labourers. In Murli S.
Dogra v. Union of India12, court banned smoking in public places. In a landmark
judgement of Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum v. Union of India 13,
Supreme Court issued guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for the rape
on working women. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan14, Supreme court has laid
down exhaustive guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of working women
in place of their work.

11 AIR 1984 802 SCC (3) 161

12 AIR 1999 SC 316
13 AIR 1995 1 SCC 14
14 AIR 1997 SC 3001

MERITS OF PIL:
1. In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) vigilant citizens of the country can find an
inexpensive legal remedy because there is only a nominal fixed court fee involved
in this.
2. Further, through the so-called PIL, the litigants can focus attention on and
achieve results pertaining to larger public issues, especially in the fields of human
rights, consumer welfare and environment.

DEMERITS OF PIL:
1. The genuine causes and cases of public interest have in fact receded to the
background and irresponsible PIL activists all over the country have started to play
a major but not a constructive role in the arena of litigation. Of late, many of the
PIL activists in the country have found the PIL as a handy tool of harassment since
frivolous cases could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in
private civil litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the victims of stay
orders obtained in the so-called PILs.
2.The framers of Indian constitution did not incorporate a strict doctrine of
separation of powers but envisaged a system of checks and balances. Policy
making and implementation of policy are conventionally regarding as the exclusive
domain of the executive and the legislature. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan15, which
15 AIR 1997 SC 3001

was a PIL concerning sexual harassment of women at work place.The court

declared that till the legislature enacted a law consistent with the convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which India was a
signatory, the guidelines set out by the court would be enforceable.
3.The flexibility of procedure that is a character of PIL has given rise to another set
of problems. It gives an opportunity to opposite parties to ascertain the precise
allegation and respond specific issues.
4.The credibility of PIL process is now adversely affected by the criticism that the
judiciary is overstepping the boundaries of its jurisdiction and that it is unable to
supervise the effective implementation of its orders. It has also been increasingly
felt that PIL is being misused by the people agitating for private grievance in the
grab of public interest and seeking publicity rather than espousing public cause.

CASE STUDY: A TIMELINE OF PILS IN INDIA AND ITS

CONTRIBUTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The following is a timeline for some important cases which illustrate the
importance of PIL for the development and growth of the enforcement of FRs in
India.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others16- The Court departed from the
traditional rule of standing by authorizing community litigation. The Court
entertained a writ petition from a prisoner, a disinterested party, objecting to
the torture of a fellow prisoner. The Court entertained the writ after
reasoning that these martyr litigations possess a beneficent potency
beyond the individual litigant and their consideration on the wider
representative basis strengthens the rule of law. Significantly, citing
peoples vicarious involvement in our justice system with a broad-based
concept of locus standi so necessary in a democracy where the masses are in
many senses weak, the Court permitted a human rights organization to
intervene in the case on behalf of the victim. This case pertained to the
solitary confinement and torture of Sunil Batra, a prisoner who had been
sentenced to death. His appeal was pending. The Court in this case also ruled
that the Right to Life includes the right to live with dignity. Life, it said was
not just mere animal existence.
Hussainara Khatoon & Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 17 -P.
N. Bhagwati, J. has observed that today, unfortunately, in our country the
16 1980 AIR 1579, SCR (2) 557

poor are priced out of the judicial system with the result that they are losing
faith in the capacity of our legal system to (sic) about changes in their life
conditions and to deliver justice to them. The poor in their contact with the
legal system have always been on the wrong side of the line. They have
always come across law for the poor rather than law of the poor. The law
is regarded by them as something mysterious and forbiddingalways taking
something away from them and not as a positive and constructive social
device for changing the social economic order and improving their life
conditions by conferring rights and benefits on them. The result is that the
legal system has lost its credibility for the weaker section of the community.
S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Others 18-In this case, Justice Bhagwati
altogether dismissed the traditional rule of standing, and replaced it with a
liberalized modern rule. In this case, the Court awarded standing to
advocates challenging the transfer of judges during Emergency. Describing
the traditional rule as an ancient vintage of an era when private law
dominated the legal scene and public law had not been born, the Court
concluded that the traditional rule of standing was obsolete. In its place, the
Court prescribed the modern rule on standing:
Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any
burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or
without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member of the public
can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ, in the
High Court under Article 226, and in case of breach of any fundamental right, in
this Court under Article 32.
17 1979 AIR 1369, SCR (3) 532
18 AIR 1982 SC 149

 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors 19- The court entertained a
petition even of unregistered Association espousing the cause of over downtrodden or its members observing that the cause of little Indians can be
espoused by any person having no interest in the matter. Carpet industries in
Uttar Pradesh employed children, under the age of 14, where they were
being treated as slaves and were subjected to physical torture. The Court
immediately commissioned a report to determine whether children under the
age of 14 were employed in the carpet industry. Subsequently the Court
appointed a committee to report (the Report) on the exploitation of children
in the carpet industry.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others 20 - The Court was dealing with
the cases of child labour and the Court found that the child labour emanates
from extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for gainful employment and
intermittency of income and low standards of living. The Court observed
that it is possible to identify child labour in the organized sector, which
forms a minuscule of the total child labour, the problem relates mainly to the
unorganized sector where utmost attention needs to be paid.
K. Basu v. State of West Bengal21 - This Court observed that the custodial
death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by
the rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the
Constitution require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The
expression life or personal liberty in Article 21 includes the right to live
with human dignity and thus it would also include within itself a guarantee
against torture and assault by the State or its functionaries. The precious
right guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials,
detenues and other prisoners in custody, except according to the procedure
19 1984 AIR 802, SCR (2) 67
20 1991 AIR 417, SCR (2) 518
21 AIR 1987

established by law by placing such reasonable restrictions as are permitted

by law. The Court gave very significant directions which are mandatory for
all concerned to follow.
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors22. - This Court gave directions
regarding enforcement of the fundamental rights of the working women
under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court gave
comprehensive guidelines and norms and directed for protection and
enforcement of these rights of the women at their workplaces.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others 23 -This case relates to pollution
caused by the trade effluents discharged by tanneries into Ganga river in
Kanpur. The court called for the report of the Committee of experts and gave
directions to save the environment and ecology. It was held that in
Common Law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction
in an action brought by a riparian owner who has suffered on account of the
pollution of the water in a river caused by the Corporation by discharging
into the river insufficiently treated sewage from discharging such sewage
into the river. But in the present case the petitioner is not a riparian owner.
He is a person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use
of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to maintain the petition
cannot be disputed. The nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga
is a public nuisance, which is widespread in range and indiscriminate in its
effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take
proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition
has been entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to move the Supreme
Court in order to enforce the statutory provisions which impose duties on the
municipal authorities and the Boards constituted under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
22 AIR 1997 SC 3001
23 AIR 1996

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others24- In this case, the court observed
that in order to preserve and protect the ancient monument Taj Mahal from
sulphur dioxide emission by industries near Taj Mahal, the court ordered 299
industries to ban the use of coke/coal. The court further directed them to
shift-over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or re-locate them.

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 25 - This case was filed to repeal
Section 377 of the Indian penal Code. It was led by the Naz Foundation
(India) Trust, a non-governmental organization, which filed a lawsuit in
the Delhi High Court in 2001, seeking legalisation of homosexual
intercourse between consenting adults In 2003, the Delhi High Court refused
to consider a petition regarding the legality of the law, saying that the
petitioners had no locus standi in the matter. Naz Foundation appealed to
the Supreme Court of India against the decision of the High Court to dismiss
the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz
Foundation had the standing to file a public interest lawsuit in this case, and
sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on the merits. The
Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that
criminalization of consensual gay sex violated these rights.

24 1988 AIR 1115, SCR (2) 530

25 AIR 2009

CONCLUSION
PIL has an important role to play in the civil justice system in that it affords a
ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, some of which might not
even be well-informed about their rights. Furthermore, it provides an avenue to
enforce diffused rights for which either it is difficult to identify an aggrieved
person or where aggrieved persons have no incentives to knock at the doors of the
courts. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government
accountable. Last but not least, PIL enables civil society to play an active role in
spreading social awareness about human rights, in providing voice to the
marginalised sections of society, and in allowing their participation in government
decision making.
Indian PIL experience also shows that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not
become a back-door to enter the temple of justice to fulfil private interests, settle
political scores or simply to gain easy publicity. Courts should also not use PIL as a
device to run the country on a day-to-day basis or enter the legitimate domain of
the executive and legislature.
The analysis of PIL cases shows that they appear to consume a significant share
of the resources of the Supreme Court resulting in its abuse. The subject matter of
PIL cases and orders remains difficult to discern because most of them are
classified as other, which is problematic from the point of view of judicial
transparency.

A number of criticisms of PIL have been voiced in recent years, including concerns
related to separation of powers, judicial capacity, and inequality. While critics have
been persuasive when pointing to particular cases, the sheer number of cases, as
well as the variation in tendencies over time and among court benches, has made
reaching a general conclusion difficult.
Prof. M. P. Jain cautions against the tendency of the public to use PILs frivolously:
PIL is a weapon which must be used with great care and circumspection; the
courts need to keep in view that under the guise of redressing a public grievance
PIL does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the
executive and the legislature.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Book referred
M.P.Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, volume-1 (5th Edition, 2003) Wadhwa,
Nagpur.

Websites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/public-interest-litigation-acritical-evaluation-1844-1.html
http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=a4a599a3-ee9241da-aa0b-b4201b77a8bd&txtsearch=Subject:%20Jurisprudence
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/importance-public-interest-litigation-india/
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/PUBLIC-INTEREST-LITIGATION3111.asp#.VzC2jdJ94dV
http://www.legalblog.in/2011/02/public-interest-litigation-definition.html

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/litigation-law/public-interestlitigation.php