Editorial

Source: The Hindu

Introduction

In a recent Supreme Court hearing, a public interest petition was addressed, alleging that rival political parties were fielding candidates with identical names to well-known political leaders, aiming to deceive voters. This raised a pertinent question before the court. The petitioner withdraws the PIL.

What is PIL?

• The term "Public Interest Litigation" originates from American jurisprudence, aiming to offer legal representation to marginalized groups such as the economically disadvantaged, racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and individuals concerned about environmental issues.
• PIL is a legal mechanism through which individuals or groups can seek judicial intervention to address matters of public concern. It allows citizens to approach the courts to protect public interest or enforce legal rights, even if they are not directly affected parties.
• The person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for public interest and not just as frivolous litigation by a busy body.
• The Court has the authority to initiate proceedings suo motu or cases can begin based on petitions filed by any conscientious citizen.

What is the Evolution of PIL in India?

• The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976).
• The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
• A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981)
  • In this case it was held that any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI)) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32 of COI) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court.

What are the Landmark Judgements in Relation to PIL?

• The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors (2004) held in an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court in her private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the Court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as a public interest case.
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1988), In this case a Public Interest Litigation was brought against Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the judgement of this case recognized sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 21. The guidelines also directed for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

What are the Constitutional Provisions Supporting PIL?

• Article 32: This article allows individuals to directly file a petition before the Supreme Court for the protection of their fundamental rights. It allows the Court to issue writs, including writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the protection of these rights.
• Article 226: This provides the High Courts with the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights within their respective jurisdictions. This includes the authority to entertain PIL petitions and issue directions for the protection of public interest.
• Fundamental Rights: Various fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the COI, such as the right to equality (Article 14), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), right against exploitation (Article 23), and right to constitutional remedies (Article 32), serve as the basis for PIL petitions. PILs often seek the enforcement of these rights on behalf of marginalized or vulnerable sections of society.
• Directive Principles of State Policy: While not enforceable by courts, the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the COI) provides guidelines for State policy-making. PILs often invoke these principles to advocate for social justice, environmental protection, and other public interest objectives.

What Factors have Contributed to the Growth of PIL in India?

• Judicial Activism: PIL gained momentum due to the proactive role of the judiciary in addressing social justice issues beyond traditional litigation. The courts have taken cognizance of matters involving public interest, thereby encouraging citizens to approach them directly.
• Expanded Access to Justice: PIL has provided marginalized and disadvantaged groups with a platform to seek justice, irrespective of their financial status. It has democratized access to the judiciary, empowering citizens to address grievances related to human rights violations, environmental degradation, and corruption.
• Legal Aid and NGOs: Legal aid organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in initiating PILs. They provide legal assistance to individuals or groups who lack resources to approach the courts independently. NGOs often serve as petitioners or facilitators in PIL cases, bringing public attention to pressing issues.
• Evolving Legal Framework: Over time, the legal framework governing PIL has evolved, with courts adopting a liberal approach towards locus standi (legal standing) and relaxing procedural requirements. This has facilitated the filing of PILs by concerned citizens, activists, and lawyers on behalf of affected parties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, PIL has emerged as a powerful mechanism for advancing social justice, upholding human rights, and promoting accountability in India's legal system. Over the years, PIL has played a pivotal role in addressing systemic injustices, empowering marginalized communities, and holding authorities accountable for their actions. PIL has brought about significant positive changes, it also faces challenges such as the issue of misuse for personal or vested interests, delays in judicial proceedings, and the need for effective implementation of court orders. Therefore, it is imperative to strike a balance between the principles of judicial activism and the sanctity of legal procedures to ensure that PIL continues to serve its intended purpose of promoting public welfare and upholding the rule of law.