History: Locus Standi

Public interest litigation
(PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and

demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by
Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s[when?] the
judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or
indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate
jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases[when?] on the grounds of public
interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring
matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application.
Contents
 1History
 2Frivolous PILs not permitted
o 2.1Importance
o 2.2Parties against whom PILs can be filed
o 2.3Filing a PIL under article 32, 226 Constitution of India or section 133 Cr. P. C.
o 2.4Landmark PIL cases
 2.4.1Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
 2.4.2M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
 3Impact of PIL
 4Further considerations
 5Notes
 6See also
 7References
 8External links
History[edit]
See also: Constitution of India
In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition in regards to the condition of the prisoners
detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in court. The petition was signed by prisoners of
the Bihar jail and the case was filed in the Supreme Court of India before the bench headed by
Justice P. N. Bhagwati. The petition was filed under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon,
and the case was therefore named Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar. The Supreme Court
decided that prisoners should receive free legal aid and fast hearings. As a result, 40,000 prisoners
were released from jail. Thereafter many similar cases have been registered in the Supreme Court.
It was in the case of SP Gupta vs Union of India that the Supreme Court of India defined the term
"public interest litigation" in the Indian context.
The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) is suited to the principles enshrined in Article 39A[a] of
the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law. Before the
1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. After the emergency era the
high court reached out to the people and devised a means for any person of the public (or NGO)
approaching the court to seek legal remedy in cases where public interest is at stake. Bhagwati and
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in court.[1] Filing a PIL is not as
cumbersome as a usual legal case; there have been instances when letters and telegrams
addressed to the court have been heard as PILs.[2]
The Supreme Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi; it requested
the enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who lived in
inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, 1982 (2) SCC 583 : 1982
SCC (Cri) 511 : AIR 1983 SC 339, the court treated a letter addressed to a judge of the court by the
Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy through
its President v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486 : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74 : 1995 (3) SCC
743 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip
Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court
alleging human rights violations of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA)
detainees; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.[3][4]
Frivolous PILs not permitted[edit]

PIL is a rule of law declared by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing the petition
must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition serves the public interest and is not as a
frivolous lawsuit brought for monetary gain. The 38th Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has
stated that substantial "fines" would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PILs. His statement was
widely praised because the incidence of frivolous PILs for monetary interest were on the rise.[citation
needed]
A bench of the high court had also expressed concern over the misuse of PILs. The bench
issued a set of guidelines it wanted all courts in the country to observe when entertaining PILs.[citation
needed]
In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the misuse
of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we may have gone
too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some balance restored in recent times”.
[citation needed]
In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice (assisted
by Bhagwati and Iyer) prepared a law regulating PILs.
The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A
litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take
inconsistent positions”. For example, a petition drafted by Amar Singh was vague, not in
conformance with the rules of procedure, and contained inconsistencies; the court did not explore
his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). A positive outcome of the case was the court’s
request that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines to prevent interception of telephone
conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case, Reliance Communications acted upon a forged
request from police.
In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation in business
conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of asbestos units,
stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high court dismissed the petition, stating that it
was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos
substitutes. A similar petition was then submitted to the Supreme Court. The plea was dismissed,
and the plaintiff was assessed a fine of ₹100,000. The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona
fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in
banning of [sic] the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was made by
it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and
ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute for asbestos. Thus it was litigation
initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of
asbestos through the process of court”. The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to
punish the petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act; it must “ensure that such unscrupulous and
undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the valuable time
of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system”.
“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would
encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations
made by individuals, i.e., busybodies', a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar
observed in their judgment. The bench overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High
Court decision which set aside the services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed
by the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. The high court’s decision concerned a public-interest petition
filed by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the
loss of “300 gold dollars” from the temple and should not continue in office. The Supreme Court
found that the high court decided against the accused with little information about Reddy himself.
“The parameters within which PILs can be entertained have been laid down. The credentials, the
motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise
the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold”, the judgment stated. As for why it is skeptical
about a large number of PILs, the bench spoke for the Supreme Court when it said that the “judiciary
has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. This Court (Supreme Court of India)
must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind”.

History: Locus Standi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

History: Locus Standi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History: Locus Standi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public interest litigation

(PIL) refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and

Frivolous PILs not permitted[edit]

You might also like