This article has been written by Kanchan Chhabria a Second-Year Student of K C Law College, Mumbai

Public Interest Litigation is one of the important instruments through which judicial activism has flourished in India. The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganised consumers, citizens who were passionate about the environmental issues, etc

In India, the framework of PIL was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer and they through their milestone decisions made a clear way to continue with PIL. The concept of PIL has been pivotal in protecting the environment, labour matters, discrimination and harassment, pollution and safeguarding the rights of the public.

Concept of Public Interest Litigation

The term “Public interest Litigation,” in simple words, means, litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of “Public Interest” such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, constructional hazards etc. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is introduced in a court of law not by the aggrieved party but by a private party or by the court itself. It has become a potent tool for enforcing the legal obligation of the executive and the legislature.

History of Public Interest Litigation

The seeds of the concept of Public Interest Litigation were initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. AbdulBhai Faizullabhai & Ors, wherein an unregistered association of workers was permitted to institute a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the redress of common grievances.

The first reported case of PIL, in 1979, focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, the PIL was filed by an advocate based on the news item published in the Indian Express, highlighting the plight of thousands of under trial prisoners languishing in various jails in Bihar. A writ petition was filed by an advocate drawing the court’s attention to the deplorable plight of these prisoners. These proceeding led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners. 

In 1981, Justice P.N. Bhagawati 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.”

A Public Interest Litigation can be filed on various matters:-
a. bonded labour matters,
b. matters of neglected children,
c. exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages,
d. matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Economically Backward Classes,
e. matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life,
f. petitions from riot victims and
g. other matters of public importance.

Landmark Cases of Public Interest Litigation

Some of the landmark cases emerged because of the concept of Public Interest Litigation are explained below-

Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India:

In this case, human rights advocate Parmanand Katara petitioned the Supreme Court with a writ on the basis of a newspaper article about the death of a scooterist who was hit by a speeding car. He was told to be transported to a hospital 20 km distant that was permitted to handle medico-legal matters after doctors refused to treat him. 

The Supreme Court in this PIL passed a decision on the grounds that-

• Life preservation is of the greatest priority.
• Every doctor has a duty to extend their services with the expertise for life protection. Whether they work in a government institution or not.
• There should be no question that the effort to save the person should be given first priority.

The Apex court in its judgement stated that Article 21 of Constitution casts the obligation on the State to preserve life. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life.

No law or State action can intervene to avoid/delay the discharge of the paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession. It was also stated that the duty of saving lives rested with the public and police as well and that apprehensions about the same had to be cleared for all. This case became a landmark for cases of road accidents and casted responsibility on doctors to extend their service in savings lives without causing any delays.

M.C Mehta vs. Union of India:

In a Public Interest Litigation 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: 

In this case, the Supreme Court in a PIL filed by group of women and NGOs, specifically underlined the definition of Sexual Harassment, which conveys any unwanted or uninvited physical touch or conduct or showing of pornography or any definable sexual comments or texts will come under the ambit of Sexual Harassment. The Supreme Court held out guidelines that, the person-in-charge of the particular institution, organisation or office whether be it private or public, will be responsible in taking effective steps to prevent sexual harassment. The judgement of the 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.

Significance of Public Interest Litigation

PIL has played an important role as an instrument of social change and for maintaining the rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. 

It has also helped in the liberal interpretation of locus standi where any person can apply to the court on behalf of those who are economically or physically unable to come before the court and where rights of group of people is affected. Judges themselves have in some cases initiated Suo moto action based on newspaper articles or letters received by converting them into writ petitions and looking into the matters.

Although social and economic rights given under Part IV of the Indian Constitution are not legally enforceable, courts have indirectly incorporated them into fundamental rights thereby making them judicially enforceable. For instance, the “right to life” in Article 21 has been expanded to include right to free legal aid, right to live with dignity, right to education, right to work, freedom from torture, bar fetters and hand cuffing in prisons, etc

 Thus, PIL is a valuable tool for safeguarding the rights of people whose rights have been violated. 

Conclusion

To conclude I would like to say that Public Interest Litigation have been used by the Courts as an effective tool in dealing with cases involving Infringement of legal rights of the citizens. The nature and scope of PIL ensures that community rights and interests are effectively safeguarded. The community rights and interests concern vast majority of people who are deprived of their rights to access to justice because of the ignorance, poverty, remoteness, and social and economic disadvantage. Serving the public at large is the most important characteristics of PIL. Hence, PIL has proved to be a great weapon in the hands of higher courts for instrumenting social change & our judiciary has certainly utilized this weapon of PIL in best possible manner.

References

Mumbai Kamagar Sabha Vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1455

Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar 1979 AIR 1369

Vishaka & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India 1989 SCR (3) 997

M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India and Others (1988) 1 SCC 471

http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/379/Articles/Public%20Interest%20Litigation.pdf

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening