INTRODUCTION

Social change is the necessity of any society. In India it is done through Public Interest
Litigation. In this article an attempt was made to assess the impact of PIL overIndian Society.
The jurisprudence of PIL is necessary to understand the nature of PIL in India.
Such is the disillusionment with the state formal legal system that it is no longer demanded
by law to do justice, if justice perchance is done, we congratulate ourselves for being
fortunate. In these circumstances one of the best things that have happened in the country
in recent years is the process of social reform through Public Interest Litigation or Social
Action Litigation.
Late 1970s marked discernible shift from legal centralism. Legal pluralism was very apparent
now. It was realized that social conduct was regulated by the interaction of normative
orders, notion of popular justice, community justice, and distributive justice were sought to
be institutionalised, though outside the sphere of the formal legal system and in opposition
to it.
 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.
 Public interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law, for the
protection of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety,
Constructional hazards etc. Any matter where the interest of public at large is
affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.
 Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been
interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large.
 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.
 The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases
can commence on the petition of any public spirited individual.
 Some of the matters which are entertained under PIL are:

o Bonded Labour matters

o Neglected Children
o Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual
workers
o Atrocities on women
 o Environmental pollution and disturbance of ecological balance
o Food adulteration
o Maintenance of heritage and culture

Genesis and Evolution of PIL in India: Some Landmark

Judgements
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. Abdul Thai.
The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. 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.
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.
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.
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) or the
Supreme Court (under Article 32) 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.
By this judgment PIL became a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where
executive action or misdeed resulted in public injury. And as a result any citizen of India or
any consumer groups or social action groups can now approach the apex court of the
country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of general public or a section
of the public are at stake.
Justice Bhagwati did a lot to ensure that the concept of PILs was clearly enunciated. He did
not insist on the observance of procedural technicalities and even treated ordinary letters
from public-minded individuals as writ petitions.
The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala
Consultancy Service and ors 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 public interest case.
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: 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.
Factors Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India
 The character of the Indian Constitution. India has a written constitution which
through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy)
provides a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens and
between citizens inter-se.
 India has some of the most progressive social legislations to be found anywhere in
the world whether it be relating to bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling,
environmental protection, etc. This has made it easier for the courts to haul up the
executive when it is not performing its duties in ensuring the rights of the poor as
per the law of the land.
 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 it has
helped. Judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on
newspaper articles or letters received.
 Although social and economic rights given in the Indian Constitution under Part IV
are not legally enforceable, courts have creatively read these 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.
 Judicial innovations to help the poor and marginalised: For instance, in
the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the
respondent stating it would treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded
labor unless proven otherwise by the employer. Similarly in the Asiad Workers
judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting less than the
minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through the
labor commissioner and lower courts.
 In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary
evidence, either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or
economically, courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts
and present it before the bench.

Factors Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India

The character of the Indian Constitution. India has a written constitution which through Part
III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) provides a
framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens and between citizens
inter-se.
India has some of the most progressive social legislations to be found anywhere in the world
whether it be relating to bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling, environmental
protection, etc. This has made it easier for the courts to haul up the executive when it is not
performing its duties in ensuring the rights of the poor as per the law of the land.
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 it has helped. Judges
themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on newspaper articles or
letters received.
Although social and economic rights given in the Indian Constitution under Part IV are not
legally enforceable, courts have creatively read these 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.
Judicial innovations to help the poor and marginalised: For instance, in the Bandhua Mukti
Morcha, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the respondent stating it would
treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the
employer. Similarly in the Asiad Workers judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that
anyone getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly
without going through the labor commissioner and lower courts.
In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary evidence,
either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or economically,
courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the
bench.

Historical Background of the Origion of Public Interest

Litigation
The initial inspiration for PIL came from the American concept of Public Interest Litigation
and the class actions of the 1960’s.5 In U.S.A. it is called the ‘Public Interest Law’ whereas in
the Indian Subcontinent it is known as ‘Public Interest Litigation’. In fact, it is the U.S.A., the
real pioneer in the path of PIL which influenced some PIL activist of some countries of the
world to work for PIL in 1960s and 70s.6 Commentators frequently date the emergence of
Public Law Litigation (in USA Public Interest Litigation is named as Public Law Litigation) in
the U.S.A. to the celebrated campaign that resulted in the decision in Brown Vs. Board of
Education,7 in which U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a stste’s segregation of
public school students by race. Brown includes many procedural features since associated
with Public Law Litigation: the defendant was a public institution; the claimants comprised a
self-constituted group with membership that changed over time; relief was prospective,
seeking to reform future action by government agents; and the judge played a leadership
role complemented by the parties effort at negotiation. The literature distinguishes this
form of litigation from the classical model of adjudication, which is conceptualized as a
private, bipolar dispute marked by individual participation and the imposition of
retrospective relief involving a tight fit between right and remedy.8

Brown provided inspiration to a generation of lawyers who saw law as a source of liberation
as well as transformation for marginalized groups. Courts, mostly federal but state as well,
became involved in a broad range of social issues, including voting and apportionment,
contraception and abortion, employment and housing discrimination, environmental
regulation, and prison conditions. Prison reform litigation illustrates the extent of the
judiciary’s involvement in Public Law cases: after years of taking a “hands off” approach to
prison conditions, courts imposed remedial decrees in 48 of the nation’s 53 jurisdictions.

How does one decide to file a PIL?

It is suggested in many cases that before filing PIL individuals or groups should allow other
parties to react to the issue and then take the decision.
For instance, if you have an issue with any of the government policies or something else first
try to solve it with the concerned authorities. Explain to them the whole thing and give them
some reasonable time to respond to the issue. If they don’t respond and don’t take any
action, then you can file a PIL.

TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF PIL
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.
Procedure for filing a PIL?
1. Before filing a PIL one has to do the complete research about the issue. When a PIL is
filed concerning many people, the petitioner needs to consult all the individuals and
groups which are affected.
2. Once you are sure of filing a PIL, collect all the vital information and documents as
evidence to support your case. You can argue the case on your own or appoint a
lawyer to argue on behalf of you.
3. It is always advisable to consult a lawyer before filing the PIL. If you are interested in
arguing the case on your own then be prepared to explain the problem and convince
the court in the time you have been allotted.
4. Once the PIL copy is ready to be filed in the High Court, then submit two copies of
the petition to the court. Along with this, one copy of the petition needs to be served
to the respondents in advance. This proof of serving the petition copy to the
respondents has to be affixed in the petition.
If the PIL is filed in the Supreme Court, then five copies of petition need to be submitted to
the court. Respondent is served with the petition copy when the court issues the notice
regarding the same.

Who Can File a PIL and Against Whom?

Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition:
Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.
Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.
Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of Magistrate.
However, the court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfils some basic needs for PIL
as the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited individual and a social
action group for the enforcement of legal or Constitutional rights to any person who are not
able to approach the court for redress.
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.
Significance of PIL
 The aim of PIL is to give to the common people access to the courts to obtain legal
redress.
 PIL is an important instrument of social change and for maintaining the Rule of law
and accelerating the balance between law and justice.
 The original purpose of PILs have been to make justice accessible to the poor and the
marginalised.
 It is an important tool to make human rights reach those who have been denied
rights.
 It democratises the access of justice to all. Any citizen or organisation who is capable
can file petitions on behalf of those who cannot or do not have the means to do so.
 It helps in judicial monitoring of state institutions like prisons, asylums, protective
homes, etc.
 It is an important tool for implementing the concept of judicial review.
 Enhanced public participation in judicial review of administrative action is assured by
the inception of PILs.

Certain Weaknesses of PIL

 PIL actions may sometimes give rise to the problem of competing rights. For
instance, when a court orders the closure of a polluting industry, the interests
of the workmen and their families who are deprived of their livelihood may not
be taken into account by the court.
 It could lead to overburdening of courts with frivolous PILs by parties with
vested interests. PILs today has been appropriated for corporate, political and
personal gains. Today the PIL is no more limited to problems of the poor and
the oppressed.
 Cases of Judicial Overreach by the Judiciary in the process of solving socio-
economic or environmental problems can take place through the PILs.
 PIL matters concerning the exploited and disadvantaged groups are pending for
many years. Inordinate delays in the disposal of PIL cases may render many
leading judgments merely of academic value.
USE OF PIL IN PRESENT SCENARIO
No doubt the PILs had played a key role in strengthening the rule of law of the country and
It ensured that everyone has access to justice. Anyone capable of doing so can file petitions
on behalf of others who are unable or do not have the resources to do so. But in recent
times it has been observed that certain PILs are filed just to fulfil political as well as personal
vendetta. According to Supreme Court’s bench led by Justice NV Ramana and including
Justices SK Kaul and BR Gavai the bench observed that the essence of the PIL has been
forgotten since lawyers continue to file petitions on “what they feel is possible.” The bench
also observed that “This is not public interest litigation.”

The concept of PILs has been abused by a group of self-proclaimed activists-turned-lawyers,

who want to gain influence over the elected governments and also to the opposition just to
fulfil their vested interests. Let’s recall the remarks made by Justice Chandrachud on
Prashant Bhushan in the Loya case PIL, observed “It is a travesty of justice for the resources
of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly
filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal,
business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation,”,
the court further went on to say that “Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive
market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of
democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve
disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law,” There are
many other cases where the Courts made strong observations and rejected the PILs lets
have a quick look on some of them; (i) A PIL was filed to construct the great wall of India
along the entire border by Vaishya Samaj Association, it was dismissed by the court, the
courts have many times asked the litigants for paying hefty amount of money for filing
frivolous PILs (ii) In the year 2017 SC imposed a hefty fine of Rs. 25 lakhs on an organization
named Suraz India Trust, and its chairman Rajiv Daiya for “wasting” judicial time by filing
over five dozen frivolous PILs (iii) In 2017 a PIL was filed by an advocate on whom the
supreme court slapped a hefty fine for filing frivolous PIL and for wasting precious time of
the judiciary (iv) The Delhi HC dismissed the plea which was filed to sought directions from
the court to suspend all construction related works of Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment
Project, but the bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the
petition and called the PIL as “MOTIVATED” and “NOT A GENUINE PIL”, not only this the
bench also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners.

As it is said that every right comes with a responsibility, same is with the filing of PILs, yes
you do have a right to file a PIL for the welfare of the public but this doesn’t give you a
license of misappropriating the whole idea behind the introduction of PILs. Already around
60,000 cases are pending in Supreme Court. And around 42 lakh cases are pending in
different High Courts of India and some people come to court to fulfil their POLITICAL
INTEREST in the form of PILs as said by Justice Arun Mishra that “whether the Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) had acquired a new meaning as the “Political Interest Litigation”, he also
made a remark that if “Politically sponsored cases are filed in the guise of a PIL and if such
petitions are not disposed of in the petitioners’ favour, the courts are slammed and the date
of such a judgment is dubbed as a ‘black day for the judiciary”.
The idea of PIL should not be disregarded just because for reason that it had been filed by a
person of any political, corporate or personal connectivity but if any PIL is found to be
frivolous in nature then the courts should slap hefty fines along with some sanctions which
will act as a deterrent in the future and if not done so the efforts of Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer
and P.N. Bhagwati, who are accredited for opening the door of justice for all, will surely go
in vain.

Necessity of informal justice

Necessity of informal justice, whether as an alternative to state law or as to its agent to find
its identity in opposition to state law stems from the nature of Anglo-Saxon law prescribing
legal formalism and due to the failure of formal legal system to deliver justice that forced
informal justice to take on a separate identity from state law.
The British rule bequeathed to India a colonial legal heritage. The Anglo-Saxon model of
adjudication insisted upon observance of procedural technicalities such as locus standi and
adherence to adversarial system of litigation. The result was that the courts were accessible
only to the rich and the influential people. The marginalized and disadvantaged groups
continued to be exploited and denied basic human rights.

Public Interest Litigation as exists today

PIL today offers such a paradigm which locates the content of informal justice without the
formal legal system. Non Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction directs courts to transcend the traditional
judicial function of adjudication and provide remedies for social wrongs. PIL had already
molded the state in to the instrument of socio economic change. Social justice is the by
product of this transcends from the formal legal system.

Evolution of Public Interest Litigation

The Indian PIL is the improved version of PIL of U.S.A. According to “Ford Foundation” of
U.S.A., “Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide
legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have
been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to
provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests.
Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and
ethnic minorities and others”. The emergency period (1975-1977) witnessed colonial nature
of the Indian legal system. During emergency state repression and governmental
lawlessness was widespread. Thousands of innocent people including political opponents
were sent to jails and there was complete deprivation of civil and political rights. The post
emergency period provided an occasion for the judges of the Supreme Court to openly
disregard the impediments of Anglo-Saxon procedure in providing access to justice to the
poor. Notably two justices of the Supreme Court, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N.
Bhagwati recognised the possibility of providing access to justice to the poor and the
exploited people by relaxing the rules of standing. In the post-emergency period when the
political situations had changed, investigative journalism also began to expose gory scenes
of governmental lawlessness, repression, custodial violence, drawing attention of lawyers,
judges, and social activists. PIL emerged as a result of an informal nexus of pro-active
judges, media persons and social activists. This trend shows starke difference between the
traditional justice delivery system and the modern informal justice system where the
judiciary is performing administrative judicial role. PIL is necessary rejection of laissez faire
notions of traditional jurisprudence.
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 Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, 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 undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in
Bihar. These proceeding led to the release of more than 40, 000 undertrial 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.
In 1981 the case of Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1008, exposed the brutalities of
the Police. News paper report revealed that about 33 suspected criminals were blinded by
the police in Bihar by putting the acid into their eyes. Through interim orders S. C. 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 Assam, (1995) 3SCC 743), the S. C. declared that the
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.

Concept of PIL
According to the jurisprudence of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, “The right to move
the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this part is guaranteed”. Ordinarily, only the aggrieved party has the right to seek redress
under Article 32.In 1981 Justice P. N. Bhagwati in .S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp)
SCC 87, 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 rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out 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 (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC
349).
Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy
Service and Ors., J. T. 2004 (4) SC 587, held 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 case”.
In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, J.T. S.C. 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 by pass 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. 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”.

Public Interest Litigation as a means of Social

Transformation
The roots of Public Interest Litigation can be traced from the concept of action popularis of
Roman Jurisprudence. In common parlance, the aggrieved party has the locus standi to
approach the Court for seeking redressal to the grievances. However, through PIL it is
axiomatic that locus standi is liberally interpreted enabling a pro bono publico to file a
petition. The courts can also take suo moto cognizance. In making a reference to the Realist
School of jurisprudence PIL can be stated as the judge led and judge induced strategy
germinating from the oath which a judge takes for negating injustice. The judges even
accepted letters and telegrams as petitions. As per the Sociological Jurisprudence it is an
approach where the Judges are concerned with the actual functioning of the Law in its true
sense and spirit by reaching out to the masses for the progressive society rather than its
abstract content. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer can be said as pioneers of
PIL. PIL is a product of Judicial Activism in India; it can be filed in the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the very first PIL in 1976, Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/s. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and
others (1976 (3) SCC 832) J. Krishna Iyer gave proactive judgment; in the case of D.K. Basu v.
State of West Bengal[(1997) 1 SCC 416] the Court took action based upon the letter seeking
urgent attention to the custodial deaths in West Bengal. The judgement in the case of
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan(AIR 1997 SC 3011) promotes enforcement of gender equality
and created a revolution by laying down the guidelines to be followed for curbing the
menace of sexual harassment of women at workplace. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of
Bihar the Court was made vigilant on the conditions of the under trials who were in
untenable detention pending for trial. The Judiciary has also acknowledged the right of the
Mother Nature to place a plea for the protection by redressing to the series of M.C. Mehta
Cases which forms the important ingredient of Environmental Jurisprudence in India
In the largest and populous democracy of the globe, where a strong percentage of the
population comprises of the unrepresented group-vulnerable and downtrodden PIL serves
as strong voice to the voiceless voices, thereby bridging the gap between the aggrieved and
the justice. However the boon of PIL is to be used piously for the welfare of the society at
large and not to satisfy any ulterior gains furthermore, on no account it should be frivolous
in nature.
Aspects of PIL
(a) Remedial in Nature
Remedial nature of PIL departs from traditional locus standi rules. 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 had
changeth the procedural nature of the Indian law into 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.

(b) 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. PIL is a modified form of class action.

(c)Citizen standing
The doctrine of citizen standing thus marks a significant expansion of the court’s rule, from
protector of individual rights to guardian of the rule of law wherever threatened by official
lawlessness.

(d) Non-adversarial Litigation

In the words of S. C. in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 S.C.
1473, “We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public interest
litigation…is 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.
1. Collaborative litigation; and
2. Investigative Litigat
In collaborative litigation the effort is from all the sides. The claimant, the court and the
Government or the public official, all are in collaboration here to see that basic human rights
become meaningful for the large masses of the people. PIL helps executive to discharge its
constitutional obligations. Court assumes three different functions other than that from
traditional determination and issuance of a decree.
(i). Ombudsman- The court receives citizen complaints and brings the most important ones
to the attention of responsible government officials.

(ii) Forum – The court provides a forum or place to discuss the public issues at length and
providing emergency relief through interim orders.
(iii) Mediator – The court comes up with possible compromises.

Investigative Litigation: It is investigative litigation because it works on the reports of the

Registrar, District Magistrate, comments of experts, newspapers etc.

(e) Crucial Aspects

The flexibility introduced in the adherence to procedural laws. In Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.,(1985) 2 SCC 431, court rejected the defense of Res
Judicta. Court refused to withdraw the PIL and ordered compensation too. In R.C. Narain v.
State of Bihar, court legislated the rules for the welfare of the persons living in the mental
asylum. To curtail custodial violence, Supreme Court in Sheela Barse v. State of
Maharashtra, issued certain guidelines. Supreme Court has broadened the meaning of Right
to live with human dignity available under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a
greatest extent possible.

(f) Relaxation of strict rule of Locus Standi

The strict rule of locus standi has been relaxed by way of (a) Representative standing, and
(b) Citizen standing. In D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579, S.C. held that a
petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply
interested in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged
the practice followed by the state of Bihar in repromulgating a number of ordinances
without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a
member of public has ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a petition under Article 32.
The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bonafide and having
sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out 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…court has to strike balance between two conflicting
interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid
mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive and the
legislature (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC 349).
It is depressing to note that on account of trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal
of cases of genuine litigants. Though the Supreme Court spares no efforts in fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending its ling arm of sympathy to the poor,
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated
and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard (Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of W. B.)

(g) Epistolary Jurisdiction

The judicial activism gets its highest bonus when its orders wipe some tears from some eyes.
This jurisdiction is somehow different from collective action. Number of PIL cells was open
all over India for providing the footing or at least platform to the needy class of the society.

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. 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. PIL has been used as a strategy to combat the atrocities prevailing in society. It’s an
institutional initiative towards the welfare of the needy class of the society. In Bandhu Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India, S.C. ordered for the release of bonded labourers. In Murli S. Dogra
v. Union of India, court banned smoking in public places. In a landmark judgement of Delhi
Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14, Supreme Court
issued guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for the rape on working women. In
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan Supreme court has laid down exhaustive guidelines for
preventing sexual harassment of working women in place of their work.

CRITICISM OF PIL
The debates over the limits of Judicial Activism in the area of PIL, have been vigorous. A
private members bill entitled “Public Interest Litigation (Regulation) Bill, 1996” was tabled in
the Rajya Sabha. The statement of objectives and reasons stated that PIL was misused in the
name of providing justice to the poor sections of the society and also that PIL cases were
given more priority over other cases which led to pending of several “general section cases”
in the court for years. However, the bill was not passed.
Bearing in mind the power and importance of PIL in making the Constitution a living reality
for every citizen and also the efforts channelled through the medium of PIL jurisprudence in
providing justice to the deprived, the process is positively succeeding, following the logic of
its nature. In a country Characterized by numerous “Variable Ethnicity” and religious
diversity, working via the pattern through a comprehensive bureaucracy, a grieved, poor,
deprived citizen does find it hard to seek justice because of economic disability or lack of
“Know-How” or even due to red-tapism. The only option left before the deprived next to a
miracle is a PIL petition.

Conclusion
It would be appropriate to conclude by quoting Cunningham, “Indian PIL might rather be a
Phoenix: a whole new creative arising out of the ashes of the old order.”
PIL represents the first attempt by a developing common law country to break away from
legal imperialism perpetuated for centuries. It contests the assumption that the most
western the law, the better it must work for economic and social development such law
produced in developing states, including India, was the development of under develop men.

The shift from legal centralism to legal pluralism was prompted by the disillusionment with
formal legal system. In India, however instead of seeking to evolve justice- dispensing
mechanism ousted the formal legal system itself through PIL. The change as we have seen,
are both substantial and structural. It has radically altered the traditional judicial role so as
to enable the court to bring justice within the reach of the common man.
Further, it is humbly submitted that PIL is still is in experimental stage. 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 PIL develops a new jurisprudence
of the accountability of the state for constitutional and legal violations adversely affecting
the interests of the weaker elements in the community. 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”.
 Public Interest Litigation has produced astonishing results which were unthinkable
three decades ago. Degraded bonded labourers, tortured under trials and women
prisoners, humiliated inmates of protective women’s home, blinded prisoners,
exploited children, beggars, and many others have been given relief through judicial
intervention.
 The greatest contribution of PIL has been to enhance the accountability of the
governments towards the human rights of the poor.
 The PIL develops a new jurisprudence of the accountability of the state for
constitutional and legal violations adversely affecting the interests of the weaker
elements in the community.
 However, the Judiciary should be cautious enough in the application of PILs to avoid
Judicial Overreach that are violative of the principle of Separation of Power.
 Besides, the frivolous PILs with vested interests must be discouraged to keep its
workload manageable.