Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COMMISSION
PROJECT ON
PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION
An effective remedy in
reference to age
Submitted by : Pratyush Gaurav
DATE: 1/6/2017
Over the years, Public interest litigation has become one of the important tools of
legal aid and has served to bring justice in many cases involving social and environmental
concerns. Under public interest litigation, any public-spirited individual or group can move
the court of law, under article 226 of constitution for High Courts and article 32 for Supreme
Court, in case of breach of any fundamental right, to seek judicial redressed. Public Interest
Litigation is a form of writ petition which can be filed by anybody, even if he or she is not
directly affected by the perceived injustice. This has enabled environmentally- conscious,
public-spirited individuals or groups, which are not an aggrieved party, to have easy access
to the highest court of the nation. Public interest litigations become a collaborative effort
between petitioner, state or public authority and the court, to redress the breach of
fundamental right. The Supreme Court has played a pro-active role in enhancing the use of
grievances to be addressed through the mechanism. It has relaxed the requirement of formal
writ to seek redress. Any member the public can move the court for social cause even
The Indian Public interest litigation is improved version of public interest litigation
of USA. According to ‘Ford foundation’ of USA’ “Public Interest Law is the name that has
recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previous unrepresented
group and interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalist’s
1. http.//www.legalserviceinindia.com.
The first reported case of public interest litigation in 1979 focused on the inhuman
conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners. In Hussaniara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 2, the
public interest litigation was filed by advocate on the basis of 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 40000 under trials
light to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these
Public interest litigation means a legal action initiated in court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights and liabilities are
affected.3
Public interest litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental and other legal
rights of people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal redresses system or otherwise in
disadvantageous positions, due to their social or economic background. Such litigation can
be initiated only for redresses of public injury, enforcement of public duty or indicating
interest of public nature. It is necessary that petition is not filed for personal gain or private
motive or for other extraneous consideration and is filed bonafide in public interest.
The courts exercising their power of judicial review found to its dismay that the
poorest of poor, depraved, illiterate, urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women,
children, handicapped by ‘ignorance, indigence and illiteracy’ and other downtrodden have
either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of proceedings know as
‘Social Interest Litigation’ or ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was evolved with a view to render
time. The courts in Pro bono Publico granted relief to the inmates of prisons, provided legal
aid, directed speedy trial, maintenance of human dignity and covered several other areas.
Pro bono Publico constituted a significant state in present day judicial system. They
provided dockets with much greater responsibility for rendering the concept of justice
available to disadvantaged sections of society. Public interest litigation has come to stay and
its necessity can not be overemphasized. The court in place of disinterested and
But with the passage of time, things started taking different shapes. The process was
sometimes abused. Proceedings were initiated in the name of public interest litigation for
Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in
Litigation’ or ‘Politics Interest Litigation’. There must be real and genuine public interest
involved in litigation and it cannot be invoked by person or body of persons to further his or
their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Court of justice
jurisdiction. A person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have locus standi can approach the courts to wide out violation
fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain
or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspects were
highlighted by Apex of Investigation court in Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary 5 & Kazi Landup
in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also
matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying
curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of community have
pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights and liabilities are affected.8
The administrative order on the petition filed by the petitioners, in public interest
litigation, could not disentitle the petitioners of hearing and matter should have been
considered by the court. In this connection, it may be noted that guidelines to be followed
circulated by hon’ble Supreme Court and on examination by public interest litigation cell it
was found that as per the guidelines, the petition would not be cognizable as public interest
litigation. There was no doubt that some letters/petitions sent to High Court can well be
taken cognizance of and entertained as public interest litigation. But as to keep check on
frivolous letter/petitions some guidelines have been evolved, in the light of which a cell has
been constituted which scrutinizes the letters or petitions received as to whether they fall in
the category of public interest litigation or not. If the cell comes to the conclusion that the
subject matter was not covered by guidelines, it will then not be entertained as public
6. Ramyas Foundation v. UOI, AIR 1993 SC 852 & K.P. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994)
6 SCC 620.
2. Neglected children
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for premature release and seeking
release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, released on personal
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and
drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and
police from persons belonging to SC & STs and economically backward classes.
Matters which were not to be entertained as public interest litigation are indicated as below-
1. Landlord-Tenant matters
4. Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts.
One should be able to file public interest litigation whenever there is public interest
that needs to be addressed. There does not have to be a violation of specific fundamental
right.
Only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in proceeding of public interest
litigation will alone have locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of
poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for
personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly,
vexatious petition under the colour of Public Interest Litigation brought before the court for
In another case, where court says ‘such litigation can not per se on behalf of poor and
downtrodden, unless the court is satisfied that there has been violation of article 21 and
The strange thing is that the Supreme Court seems have just quietly gone from
allowing public interest litigations only been there is an accompanying fundamental right
infraction to allow public interest litigations even without fundamental right infractions.
If all Public interest litigations were relating to fundamental rights, then all should
fall within constitution field. But the number of search hits for two are different with first
being greater, showing that Public Interest Litigations are not necessarily for the
of India, (1950) SCR 869; Rao Bahadur v. State of U.P., (1953) SCR 1188 (1202).
While in U.K., the foregoing rule is known as the rule of locus standi or standing of the
Petitioner before the court, who complains of a violation of his human right. While this rule
still applies in the generality of cases, an exception has been introduced in the case of laws
which affect the public in generality, but the persons who are directly affected are not likely
to come to Court to assert their rights. In such cases, an association or an individual has been
allowed to fight for the public cause and challenge the constitutionality of the law or order,
through the Petitioner may not be able to show that he has been directly injured or affected
by it.15 He may move the Court for enforcement of a public right provided he is not a mere
busybody, but a person having a ‘reasonable concern with the matter’ to which his
application relates.16 The doctrine of ‘public interest litigation’, so evolved, has been
describe by the house of Lords itself as a ‘change in legal policy’,- even though the change
started by the modest process of liberalizing the meaning of the expression ‘person
In U.S.A., it has been held that where a fundamental right guaranteed by the First
Amendment to the Constitution is clearly and directly violated by a statute, society itself has
an interest to challenge the statute to maintain the guaranteed right, so that in such a case a
person may be allowed to move the Court even though the applicant himself has not been
15. Blackburn v. A.G., (1971) 2 All ER 1830 (1833) C.A.; R.v. Greater L.C.C., (1976) 3 All
ER 184 (C.A.).
16. I.R.C. v. National Fed., (1981) 2 All ER 93 (104, 116) (HL); R.v.H.M,. Treasury; (1985)
1 All ER 589 (595) C.A.
17. A.G. Gambia v. Pierre, (1961) AC 617.
18. R. v. H.M. Treasury, (1985) 1 All ER 589 (595) C.A.
directly affected by the statute.19
While in India, the principle behind this doctrine was thus explained by the Indian Supreme
Court: 20
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is
or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of
the public or social action group 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 of such person or class of persons, in this court under article 32 seeking judicial redress
for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”21
In this new era of public interest litigation, the Court has not only done away with
19. Secy. of State v. Munson, (1984) 467 U.S. 947 (956-57); Schaumberg v. Citizens, (1980)
20. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (para: 17); Nakara v. Union of India, AIR
21. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (para: 17); Nakara v. Union of India,
procedure, holding that in this jurisdiction the Court can be moved even by a letter 23 the
into disputed questions of fact or take evidence beyond affidavit. But in a public interest
case, the Court may appoint a commission to gather evidence, where the poor and the
disadvantaged people who are directly affected are not in a position to place before the
The Supreme Court has taken the provision in article 32 to impose on itself “a
25 26
constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the people”; and “it is in
realization of this constitutional obligation that this Court has innovated new methods and
rights, particularly in the case of the poor and the disadvantaged who are denied their basic
22. Cf. Ferlilizer Corpn. v Union of India, A. 1981 SC 344 (para. 48-50); Bar Council v.
Dabholkar, A. 1975 SC 2098 (para. 52); see also A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC
1531; DAV College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 261 : AIR 1971 SC 1731; Subhash
Kumar V. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 (para 7-8) : (1991) 1 SCC 598; Kshetriya
Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 2060 : (1990) 4 SCC 449;
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India. (1997) 8 SCC 114 (para 114) : AIR 1997 SC 3021.
26. M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395 (405). [Such duty of Courts has been
evoled in Lesotho, from a statutory guarantee of human rights: Law Soc. V. Prime Minister,
(1986) LRC (Const.) 481 (495) see also Min. v. Bickle, (1985) LRC 755 (766) (Zimbabwe)].
human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning”.27 One of these new
strategies for safeguarding the human rights in respect of the weaker section of the
community is the doctrine of public interest litigation, which we have just seen. The Court
before which such a trial pending has authority to grant permissions to press, after weighing
the competing interest between right of the press and right of authorities prohibiting such an
interview.28
The doctrine of public interest litigation has been applied in New Zealand.29
In Canada, the Supreme Court is progressing gradually towards the public interest doctrine,
30 31
the latest view being that may person may challenge the validity of a law for
contravention of a Charter right, if he has a genuine interest as a citizen in the validity of the
legislation, and there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be
brought before the Court, 32 even though he may not be directly affected by the legislation.
Not only have the Courts expanded the jurisdiction to enforce human rights by
innovating the doctrine of ‘public interest’ as regards the Petitioner, the category of the
Respondent has similarly been enlarged by applying the doctrine of ‘State action’.
27. State, through Supdt., Central Jail, New Delhi v. Charulata Joshi and another, AIR 1999
SC 1379.
28. Finnigan V. N.Z.R.F.U., (1986) LRC (Const.) 877 (844); On the other hand, in Nigeria,
the Supreme Court has refused to introduce any modern innovation of the doctrine of locus
standi on power to the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of
the litigant [Thomas v. Olufosoye, (1987) LRC (Const.) 659 (670,672,679) Nigeria].
29. Thorson v. A.G., (1975) :SCR 18; Nova Scotia V. McNail, (1976) 2 SCR 265.
U.S.A, nearly a century after the adoption of its Constitution while the First Amendment
(1791) was couched in the form of a prohibition against the Legislature alone (by using the
word ‘Congress’), the 14th Amendment adopted in 1869, extended the prohibition in the “due
these clauses, the Supreme Court first held that it included all the organs and acts of the
Before long, however, it was realized that in order to be effective, the Fundamental
Rights should be enforced not only against the acts of the officers of the State but also its
“agents”.36 An “agent” was a person who acted in the name of and for the State or is clothed
with the powers of the State,37 or endowed with governmental functions.38 Gradually, the
doctrine has come to be applied even to acts of a private person or body,39 where its action is
supported by the Government even without legislative sanction or in abuse of its legislative
35. Ex parts Virginia, (1880) 100 U.S. 339 (347); Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusta, (1957)
36. Ex parts Virginia, (1880) 100 U.S. 339 (347); Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusta, (1957)
353 U.S. 230; Home Telephone Co. v. Los Angeles, (1913) 227 U.S. 278 (286); Steele v.
37. Evans v. Newton, (1966) 382 U.S. 296; Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982) 457 U.S. 991 (1011).
38. Cf. Pruneyyard Shopping Centre v. robins, (1980) 447 U.S, 74 (85-87)
39. U.S. v. Classic, (1941) 313 U.S. 299; Screws v. U.S., (1945) 325 U.S. 91.
authority; 40 or when the state has become involved in such private action; 41 such as joint
participation of state officials with a private person in violating the petitioner’s rights; 42 or
when the State has coerced or encouraged, overtly or covertly, the private act complained
of.43 Even a State constitutional provision has been regarded as the support of a law.44
The test to be applied is whether the infringement of the Petitioner’s right is “fairly
The foregoing principles have been applied to the guarantee against discrimination in
In India, the doctrine of State action has a wider application than in the U.S.A.
The essence of the doctrine is that the State cannot get rid of constitutional
40. Reitman v. Mulkey, (1967) 387 U.S. 369; Burton v. E.P.A., (1961) 391 U.S. 715;
41. Adickes v. Kress, (1970) 398 U.S. 144 (152, 202); Lugar v. Edmondson, (1982) 457 U.S.
922 (937, 941); Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982) 457 U.S. 991 (1004).
42. Adickes v. Kress, (1970) 398 U.S. 144 (152, 202); Lugar v. Edmondson, (1982) 457 U.S.
922 (937, 941); Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982) 457 U.S. 991 (1004).
43. Cf. Pruneyard Shopping Centre v. Robins, (1980) 447 U.S. 74 (85-87).
44. Adickes v. Kress, (1970) 398 U.S. 144 (152, 202); Lugar v. Cf Rendell-Baker v. Kohn,
Edmondson, (1982) 457 U.S. 922 (937, 941); Blum v. Yetsky, ar (1982) 457 U.S. 991 (1004);
45. Smith v. Allwright, (1944) 321 U.S. 649; Terry v. Adams, (1953) 345 U.S. 461.
State, he must be subject to the same limitations, such as the Fundamental Rights, that the
Constitution impose upon the State itself.47 The doctrine would reach not only an ‘agent’ of
the State, but even lessee from the agent, if the involvement or participation of the State
But in the U.S.A., the doctrine of State action was originally confined to the
application of the 14th and 15th Amendments. The first Amendment rights, e.g., freedom of
speech, assembly or religion, were held to be available only against infringement by the
49
Government, and not by agents of the Government, until the First amendment (which is
addressed to the ‘Congress’) came to be enforced against the States through the 14th
Amendment.50 In short, action against a ‘creature of the State’ for infringement of a First
Amendment right came to be maintainable only where such infringement also violated the
49. West Virginia State Bd. Of Education v. Barnette, (1943) 319 U.S. 624 (637, 639);
Everon v. Bd. Of Education, (1947) 330 U.S. 1 (13-14); McCollum. Bd. Of Education v,
50. West Virginia State Bd. Of Education v. Barnette, (1943) 319 U.S. 624 (637, 639);
Everon v. Bd. Of Education, (1947) 330 U.S. 1 (13-14); McCollum v. Bd. Of Education,
indirect process that the First Amendment rights have been enforced against a Board of
53 54 55
Education; or the trustee of a private testator; a society organizing a public fair, and
the like.
In the federal area also, the First Amendment rights have been applied against agents
of the government through the due process clause of the fifth Amendment.56
In India, however, the Supreme Court had an easier task in introducing the doctrine
of ‘State action’ because (i) most of the Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the
Constitution are addressed to the ‘State’, and (ii) Part III starts with the definition of the
word ‘State’ in article 12, which includes ‘other authorities’. By a liberal interpretation of
this word ‘authority’, the Court has made the Fundamental Rights enforceable against
instrumentality’ of the State, by applying certain tests laid down by the Court.
These tests, which will be more fully discussed hereafter, include the following:
51. Adickes v. Kress, (1970) 398 U.S. 144 (152, 202); Lugar v. Edmondson, (1982) 457 U.S.
922 (937, 941); Blum v. Yaretsky, (1982) 457 U.S. 991 (1004).
52. West Virginia State Bd. Of Education v. Barnette, (1943) 319 U.S. 624 (637, 639);
Everon v. Bd. Of Education, (1947) 330 U.S. 1 (13-14); McCollum v. Bd. Of Education,
55. Liberman v. Schesventer, (1978) 447 F. Supp. 1355; Iskcon v. Schmidt, (1981) 523 F.
Supp. 1303.
private body.58
(d) Where it exercises functions which would normally be performed by the State.60
(e) Where the authority has been set up for administering a statute, 61 or where statutory
(f) When the company is owned or substantially given financial assistance by the
Government.63
57.Sukhdev v. Bhagatram, A. 1975 SC 1331; Jaitla v. Commr., (1985) 1 S.L.R. 505 (para.8)
SC.
58. C.I.W.C. v. Brojo, A. 1986 SC 1371; (paras. 23, 24, 69); Ramana v. I.A.A.I., A. 1979 SC
1628 (paras. 15-16); Ajoy v. Khalid, A. 1981 SC 487 (paras. 7, 11, 15); see also Housing
Board of Haryana v. Haryana Housing Board Employee’s Union, (1996) 1 SCC 95 : AIR
Bengal, (1996) 8 SCC 758; Food Corporation of India Worker’s Union v. Food Corporation
of India, (1996) 9 SCC 439; U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. V.
59. Ramana v. I.A.A.I., A. 1979 Sc 1628 (paras. 15-16); Ajoy v. Khalid, A. 1981 SC 487
(paras,. 7, 11,15).
60. S.R.T.C. v. Devraj, A. 1976 SC 1027 (paras. 14); Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., (1963) 1
American decisions under the ‘State action’ doctrine may not be applied to India, owing to
different social conditions, and even where a private corporation becomes an agency of the
State under article 12, its private activities which have no social impact may not be subject
to the constitutional limitation of Fundamental Rights. Since such reservation has been
introduced for the first time, we should await its further development by the Court to see
whether this ride might operate as a retrograde step in the development of human rights.
It should be noted, in the present context, that the agency of State action doctrine has
In Canada, the question has not yet been authoritatively settled. In the provincial
Courts, the prevailing view is that of S.32 (1)(b) of the Legislature and the Government, and
not against private persons or authorities even when they are exercising statutory powers.66
There are, however cases where it has been held that authorities set up by statute,
64. Wijetunga v. Ins. Corpn., (1985) LRC (Const.) 333 (338) ff.; Wijeratne v. Peoples’ Bank,
(1985) LRC (Const.) 349 (355) ff.; Gunarantne v. Peoples’ Bank, (1987) LRC (Const.) 383.
65. Kohn v. Globerman, (1986) 27 DLR (4th) 583 (598-99) (Man.); Re Blainey, (1986) 26
DLR (4th) 728 (Ont.); Re Bhindi, (1985) 20 DLR (4th) 386 (B.C.).
66. Re Hardie, (1985) 24 DLR (4th) 257 (267) (B.C.); Re McCutcneon, (1983) 147 DLR (3d)
193 (O.R.).
67. Vancouver Hospital v. Stoffman, (1985) 23 DLR (4th) 146 (151) (B.C.).
68. Cf. Bancroft v University of Toronto, (1986) 24 DLR (4th) 620 (626) (Ont.).
69. Black v. Law Soc., (1983) 144 DLR (3d) 439 (445).
or those which have the power to issue regulations having the force of law, 70 would come
One of the earliest cases of Public Interest Litigation was that reported as Hussainara
Khatoon v. State of Bihar71. The case was concerned with a series of articles published in
prominent newspaper- the Indian Express which exposed the plight of industrial prisoners in
state of Bihar. A writ petition was filed by an advocate drawing the court’s attention to the
deplorable plight of these prisoners. Many of them had been in jail for longer periods than
the maximum permissible sentences for offences they had been charged with. The Supreme
Court accepted the locus standi of advocate to maintain the writ petition. Thereafter, a series
of cases followed in which the court gave directions through which ‘the right to speedy trial’
was deemed to be an integral and essential part of protection of life and personal liberty.
attitude and thinking. The country was shocked to learn that barbarous practice of blinding
of under trial prisoners was still going on at Bhagalpur Central Jail in Bihar. The method
adopted for blinding the under trial prisoners was that a long needle used for stitching gunny
bags (Takwa) or barber’s nail cutter or cycle spoke was poked into their eyes and acid was
poured into eyes sometimes with the help of dropper, sometimes with syringe and
sometimes directly from bottle. The truth has a strange method of revealing itself inspire of
veil of secrecy behind which blinding of these prisoners were subjected to this most
70. (1980) 1 SCC 81; See Upendra Baxi, ‘The Supreme Court Trial: Undertrial & the
public acceptability. This is the beginning of modern strategy in which compensation be paid
for damage done to their eyes besides punishing the police officers found guilty of
labourers in country, sent a letter, subsequently treated as writ petition in Supreme Court
complaining that inspire of article 23 and Bonded labours system (Abolition) Act, 1976, the
practice was prevalent in stone quarries in Faridabad District where a large number of
labourers from Maharashtra, M.P., U.P. and Rajasthan were working as bonded labours
process to secure social justice who lived the life of slavery of free India. What could not be
achieved by entire machinery of central and state government said to be working for the
benefit of labourers was achieved by the process of the court. These cases also justify the
conclusion recorded by H. M. Seervai that if the broad view of locus standi which Bhagwati,
J. has rightly adopted in judge’s case was not accepted, grave injury to the public would go
unredressed.74
rights, appointed three social scientists to personally study, investigate and report on
73. Constitutional Law of India (3rd Edn.) Vol 2 Para 16, 486.
74. People’s Union for Democratic Rts v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
Asian Games at New Delhi. The report indicated employment of child labour and women
labour on less than minimum wages and employment of workers under conditions violating
various other labour laws. The organization addressed a letter to justice Bhagwati, enclosing
the report & requesting appropriate judicial action. The court held that there is violation of
owners of match factories of Shivakasi in Tamil Nadu was made to the court. Court relied on
article 39(f) and 45 to ensure not only the minimum wage but also other facilities for
children. It also provided for insurance of such children and appointed a committee
consisting of District Judge, District Magistrate and public activist operating in area to
journalist, by letter complaining of their horrible conditions whilst is police lock-up in the
city of Bombay. She wrote that she had interviewed 15 women prisoners in Bombay Central
Jail and 5 out of them told her that they had been assaulted by police, while in custody.
This case indicates the anxiety of court to provide protection to women prisoners in
police lock-up and for this purpose, court gave certain directions. 78 These directions not only
start the new human rights jurisprudence but show how the judicial power can attempt
In Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, the court addressed itself to the illegal detention of
certain prisoners in Hazaribagh Central jail for almost two or three decades. The Petitioner
addressed a letter to justice Bhagwati which set the judicial process in motion. Considering
their long period of detention, court also directed the state govt. to drop cases pending
Railways are the most important means of transport. One Dr. P.Nalla Thampi, a
commuter in Kerala, field a writ petition in Supreme Court alleging violation of fundamental
Rights guaranteed under article 19 and 21 of constitution and claimed a writ of mandamus
against union of India for implementing reports of Kunzru, Wanchoo and Sikri Committees
appointed as fact finding commission to enquire and report about numerous train accidents
This case can be cited as an example illustrating the courts, concern of common man
desire to facilitate realization of his dream, for bright, peaceful & prosperous future.
In Ramnath Shankar v. Pando Pandhaya & others80 seems to have gone a step ahead
in the matter by directing the Railways to provide tilts & urinals at each Railway stations
situated between Victoria Terminus and Diwa Station by employing the ‘Pay and Use
system’ and also requiring the Railway Authorities to ensure that these facilities would be
maintained in good shape and kept clean. The court held that ‘it would be public good if
The concern of Supreme Court for victims of such tragedies is fully illustrated in its
judgment in M.C.Mehta v.UOI.81 On 4th Dec, 1985, a major leakage of oleum Gas took place
from one of the units of Shri Ram Food’s & Fertilizers Industries owned by Delhi cloth
mills, a public limited co. and affected large number of persons, both, workmen and public.
It was claimed that an advocate practicing in this Hazari Courts at Delhi also died on
account of inhalation of escaped oleum Gas. The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court
by way of Public Interest Litigation raising seminal questions concerning the true scope and
ambit of article 21 and 32. The judgment passed in this case proves how Public Interest
Litigation helps in solving the problems of weaker sections that would otherwise not be able
If a person is wrongfully incarcerated without any authority, courts have been issuing
writs to set him at liberty. Even before constitution, orders in nature of habeas corpus were
being issued under section 491 of CrPC. The jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters had
been doubtful as state had always claimed immunity from payment of any compensation
under the pretext of exercise of sovereign function. In Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab 82,
Supreme Court, for the first time, recognized the right of person to claim compensation for
illegal detention. The majority view was that such a claim has to wait till emergency in the
country was lifted. The majority view in Makhan Singh’s case was summoned in A.D.M.
detaining him had no such authority, such person can have his remedy for false
imprisonment after the emergency was lifted and constitutional right to personal liberty was
restored. The subsequently activist approach and concern over Supreme Court to the
suffering of poor and down-trodden brought about revolutionary change in this judicial
thinking. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar,84 is the landmark decision in this respect. The
Petitioners were languishing in jail for more than 14 years even after their acquittal and
approached the Supreme Court claiming liberty and compensation for illegal incarceration.
Though the Supreme Court expressed that proceeding under article 32 cannot be
substituted for the infringement of rights and obligations which can be enforced
efficaciously through ordinary process of court, it helped that it was not powerless in
granting compensation to person deprived of his fundamental right. The state was
accordingly directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35000/- as compensation for illegal arrest. This
case, therefore, paved the way for development of new compensatory jurisprudence. Though
the damages are ordinarily to be computed and awarded by civil court and depend on variety
of factors, the court seems to have given a go bye to most of these considerations. In
Sebastian Hongray v. UOI.85 In this case, a writ of habeas corpus issued by court was not
obeyed. Counter affidavits were filed to show that the said person was not traceable. The
court took exception to this plea and awarded an amount of Rs. 1 Lac as exemplary cost on
respondents thereby further strengthening the law laid in Rudal Shah’s case. The aforesaid
amount for torture, agony and mental stress that they had to suffer and was awarded as a
measure of exemplary cost. Since two persons whom the court had directed to be released
reasonable to infer that both of them have met with unnatural death.
The message of Rudal Shah and Hongrey seems to have been carried forward in
Bhim Singh v. State of J&K86 Relying on these cases, court held that it has the right to award
malicious invasion may not be washed away by his being set free. The court according
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar87 only shows that court is not
prepared to give up this new remedy developed by it. The petitions, an organization
committed to upholding of fundamental rights of citizens, had moved the court under article
32. It noted that the arrest and release of few of dead people had been compensated by state
to the tune of Rs 10000/-. It found no justification as to why the said compensation has not
been given in every case of death or injury. The court, therefore, directed that without
prejudice to the just claim or compensation, that may be advanced by the relatives of victims
or by the injured persons themselves, for every injured person compensation of Rs.20000
and for every injured person compensation of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid, within 2 months from
the date of order. Though the court gave no detailed reasons why it was issuing such a
directions in exercise of powers under article 32, it is clear that it enforced articles 14 and 21
blinds92 and welfare of children in jails93 and Preventing glorification of Sati94 have moved
court’s conscience and it has shown its willingness to came out to provide guidelines to
solve them. In Parmanand Katra v. UOI95, the court regretfully noted the plight of injured
persons in criminal case and gave directions of far reaching importance. The court was faced
with report published in Hindustan Times under the caption-Law helps the injured to die-and
meet the state’s obligation to preserve and protect life, is duty bound to extend medical
assistance to preserve life. They must attend to patient immediately and provide him
punishment under laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in-charge of
health of community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and guilty may
be punished.
In Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar 96 Supreme Court noted the plight of employees
of public sector unstatutory authorities in the state of Bihar. In a letter to Supreme Court, an
Features of public interest litigation through its mechanism, the courts seek to protect
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 re-conceptualized rights provide
legal resources to activate the courts for their enforcement through public interest litigation.
2. By fashioning new kinds of relief’s under the court’s 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 preserve the status quo pending final decision. The grant of compensation in
public interest litigation matter does not preclude the aggrieved person from bringing a civil
suit for damages. In public interest litigation cases the court can fashion any relief to the
victims.
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
4. By devising new techniques of fact finding. In most of the cases the court has
appointed its own socio-legal commissions for inquiry or has deputed its own official for
investigation. Sometimes it has taken the help of National Human Rights Commissions or
Central Bureau of Investigation or experts to inquire into human rights violations. This may
The Supreme Court has played an active role in attaining social justice through the
mode of public interest litigation. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 162 the public
interest litigation was filed by an advocate on the basis of a news report highlighting the
exposed the failure of criminal justice system and led to a chain of proceedings resulting in
the release of over 40000 undertrial prisoners. The right to speedy trial was recognized as
fundamental rights under article 21 of constitution. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.UOI163, the
Supreme Court considered the plight of bonded labourers engaged in stone quarries of
Haryana. An action in the form of PIL was initiated for identification, release and
rehabilitation of bonded labourers. The court issued direction to the Haryana government in
this regard, which were updated from time to time to meet the end of justice. In Sheela
Barse v. UOI164, a public interest litigation was filed to assist the release of juveniles and
asked for the information regarding the number of such juveniles who are placed in jails. In
atrocities committed against poor people who were forcibly taken to the police station in
Delhi to work there without wages. As a consequence of such atrocities, one person died.
While granting compensation package of Rs. 75000/- to the legal representatives of the
deceased, the court directed the recovery of same from erring policeman. In Chiranjit Kaur
v. UOI166, the petitioner’s husband was major in Army died while in service in mysterious
circumstances. No proper investigation was made regarding the cause of his death; his case
was handled with culpable negligence and cynical indifference by the authorities concerned.
It was held that the widow and her minor children were entitled compensation of Rs 6 lakh
as well as to the special family pension and the children allowance according to the relevant
rules. In SAHELI v. Commissioner of Police167, the court directed the government to pay Rs.
75000/- as compensation to the mother of victim who died because of beating by police
officer. The writ petition was filed by the women and Civil Rights Organization known as
In Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P 168, the Supreme Court awarded
compensation of Rs 10000/- to the victim of police atrocities. In this case, the police had
arrested married women on the pretext of her being a victim of abduction and rape. She was
threatened and commanded to implicate her husband and his family in case of abduction and
forcible marriage thereafter. The police officer subjected her to physical, mental and
psychological torture to make her submit to the demand of police and to abandon her legal
the petitioner who had to remain in jail for 14 years because of irresponsible conduct of state
authorities.
Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa171, the deceased aged about 22 years was taken into
police custody and beaten to death and then was thrown on railway track which after
managed to escape. The mother of the deceased sent letter to Supreme Court alleging
custodial death of her son and claimed compensation on ground of violation of article 21.
The court treated the letter as a writ petition under article 32 and impleaded the state of
Orissa, the police ASI and the concerned constable to pay Rs. 1,50000/- as compensation to
the deceased’s mother and further a sum of Rs.10000/- as costs to the Supreme Court legal
aid committee. The court however, clarified that this will not affect the petitioner’s right to
claim compensation on other proceedings in which case the amount awarded by the court
would be adjusted.
Public interest litigation is a weapon, which has to be used with great care and
circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful
will of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and /or publicity seeking is not
lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social
justice to citizens. The petition of such persons should be thrown out at the threshold and in
appropriate cases exemplary costs should be imposed. Public interest litigation cannot be
such petitions under article 32 were entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the
court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from this court personal
interest cannot be enforced through the process of this court under article 32 of the
constitution in the garb of public interest litigation. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this
court under article 32 must approach this court for the vindication of fundamental rights of
affected persons and not for the vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is the duty of
this court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not
of this court for personal matters under the garb of public interest litigation. It is thus clear
that only a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in proceeding of public
interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out the
tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a
person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of public interest litigation brought before
the court for vindicating any personal grievance deserves rejection at the threshold. It must
be noted that once the court has accepted the public interest litigation, its withdrawal is not
permissible unless the court permits the same. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw
his petition at his sweet will unless the court sees reason to permit withdrawal. In granting
the permission the court would be guided by considerations of public interest and would also
ensure that it does not result in abuse of process of law. Thus a writ petitioner who comes to
the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like any other writ
petitioner but also with clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.
Conclusion
working for the welfare of every section of society. It’s the sword of every one used only for
taking the justice. The innovation of this legitimate instrument proved beneficial for the
developing country like India. Public interest litigation has been used as a strategy to combat
needy class of the society. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, the Supreme Court ordered for
release of bonded laborers. In Murli S. Dogra v. UOI, the Supreme Court banned smoking in
public places. In a landmark judgment in Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. UOI, the
Supreme Court issued guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for the rape on
working women. In Vishaka v.State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has laid down
exhaustive guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of working women in place of their
work.
Public interest litigation, all over the country, have not taken very kindly to such
court decisions. They do fear sound the death-knell of the people friendly concept of public
interest litigation. However, bonafide litigants of India have nothing those public interest
litigation activists who prefer to file frivolous complaints will have to pay compensation to
then opposite party a welcome move because no one in the country can deny that even
public interest litigation activists should be responsible and also notable here that even the
Consumers Protection Act, 1986 has been amended to provide compensation to parties in
cases of frivolous complaints made by consumers. In any way, public interest litigation now
Many deficiencies in handling the kind of litigation are likely to come on the front. But these
deficiencies can be removed by innovating better techniques. In essence, the public interest
litigation develops a new jurisprudence of the accountability of the state for constitutional
and legal violations adversely affecting the interest of the weaker elements in the
community. Overuse and abuse of public interest litigation can only make it stale and
country, it ought not to be used by all litigants as a substitute for ones or as a means to file
frivolous complaints. We may end with the hope once expressed by Justice Krishna Iyer,
“the judicial activism gets its highest bonus when its orders wipe some tears from some
eyes”.172
172. www.legalserviceindia.com.