Public Interest Litigation

Summary:
A recent feature of the Indian legal system is the rapid growth of Public Interest
Litigation popularly known as PIL. PIL as totally a different field of litigation is brought
before the court not for enforcement of individual rights against another as done in ordinary
legislation, but it is instituted in order to redress the grievances faced by the public especially
the disadvantaged person whose grievances go unredressed. The special features of PIL are –
enlargement of the system of locus standi, system of complaint by letters, enforcement of
public duties, enforcement of right of women, etc. However, the court must be careful to see
that this useful provision of PIL is not misused by meddlesome interlopers for their personal
or political gain.

Objectives:
The main objectives of this lecture are
 to sensitize the learners about the nature and scope of PIL.
 to highlight about the relaxation of the rule of locus standi.
 to project to the mind of the learners that proper use of the PIL cases is of
great potential, but improper use will lead to an engine of destruction.

TEXT

Introduction:
A traditional litigation mostly permitted only a party to the case/ dispute, to bring a
suit or application against the opponent that may be a private person or against the
government. Under this traditional rule, howsoever the case has good merit, the case is liable
to be rejected, if such a case is found to be initiated by a meddlesome interloper who pokes
his nose in somebody else’s affairs and personally has nothing to do with the dispute.
But, a recent feature of Indian legal system is the rapid growth and development of
Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court
and the High Courts have entertained petitions and accepted letters written by person or
persons who acted pro bono publico.
PIL is totally different field of litigation and distinct from an ordinary traditional
litigation. This type of litigation is brought before the Court not for enforcement of individual
rights against another as done in ordinary litigation. But, it is instituted in order to redress the
grievance faced by the public like violation of the constitutional or legal rights of a large
number of people who are poor, ignorant or economically or socially disadvantaged person
and that their grievance is going unnoticed and unredressed.
If public duties are to be enforced and public interests protected, then public spirited
persons or organizations must be allowed to move the court and act in furtherance of the
group interest. Both in the United Kingdom and United States a liberal view came to be
adopted in allowing applications to be filed before the court via public rights. Thus, the
technical concept of locus standi came to be diluted. In India, the PIL has come into being
and became a part of the constitutional system of redressal of grievance of public nature. Not
only filing of cases formally, even a letter addressed to the Chief Justice or a column in the
newspaper have been treated as a writ petition and came to be known as Public Interest
Litigation, a Social Action Litigation and popularly known as PIL. The learners must be
sensitized in the following heads of study:

i) The enlargement in the system of Locus standi;

ii) The system of complaint by letters;
iii) The enforcement of public duties;
iv) The appointment of socio-legal Commissions for enquiry;
v) Some limitations in the use of this type of litigation.

The Locus Standi Rule:

The liberalization of the rule of locus standi is a feature of PIL. The court, in order to
reach the poor and the disadvantaged section of the society who are denied their entitlement
thought that it was a necessity to relax the rule of locus standi. In BandhuaMuktiMorcha
Vs. India: AIR 1984 SC 802, the Supreme Court justified the liberal rule of standing. The
court observed that, there is no limitation in the words of clause (1) of Article 32 that
fundamental right which is sought to be enforced by moving the Supreme Court, nor does it
say that the Supreme Court should be moved only by a particular kind of proceeding. In this
case the Court observed that wherever there is violation of fundamental right, any one could
move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of that right. This was however qualified by the
view of the Supreme Court. It has been viewed that the court would not, in exercise of its
discretion, intervene at the instance of a meddlesome interloper or busybody and would
ordinarily insist that only a person whose fundamental right is violated, should be allowed to
move the court.
A new era of PIL movement started in 1982, when Justice P.N. Bhagwati of Supreme
Court laid down in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India: AIR 1982 SC 149 that “any member of
the public or social action group acting bona fide, can invoke the jurisdiction of the High
Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional
rights of persons who owing to social or economic or other disability, cannot approach the
court.

Letters are treated as Writ Petitions:

The Supreme Court started treating letters addressed to it as writ petitions in cases
involving larger public interest or gross violation of fundamental rights. In
BandhuaMuktiMorchaVs. Union of India mentioned above, on the basis of a letter addressed
to the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court granted relief in cases of bonded labourers. In
VeenaSethiVs. State of Bihar: AIR 1983 SC 339, the court granted relief in the case of
illegal detention. In DK. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal: AIR 1997 SC 610, the Court
received a letter from the Secretary of the Legal Services Association of West Bengal
complaining custodial violence. The court issued directions relating to custodial deaths and
tortures. In Rural Litigations and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P.: AIR 1988 SC 2187
the court took the role of an educationist of environmental pollution and issued necessary
orders. In some cases the courts have taken suomoto cognizance of letters to editor in
newspapers for example. In Ram PiyariVs. Union of India: AIR 1988 Rajasthan 124 the
Rajasthan High Court has treated a column in the newspaper as a writ petition and granted
relief.
The courts in the past mostly followed adversarial method that the petitioner must
place all the relevant documentary or oral evidence for the appreciation of the court. But in
PIL matters, the courts started following the inquisitorial method. The court appointed
Commissioners from among the Advocates, Professors, Magistrates, Journalist or other
responsible persons for collecting facts and data in PIL cases involving the underprivileged.
In Khatri Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1981 SC 928 which was known as Bhagalpur Prisoners
Blinding case, the Supreme Court ordered some eye specialists to ascertain the nature and
extent of harm said to have caused to the prisoners, in their eyes. In BandhuaMuktiMorcha
discussed above, a noted sociologist was sent as Commissioner to inquire into working
conditions etc. of labourers in the stone quarries of Faridabad.
The court responded in Sunil BatraVs. Delhi Administration: AIR 1980 SC 1579. A
letter was written by Sunil Batra a prison inmate drawing the attention of the Supreme Court
to the miserable lot of a fellow prisoner who was being subjected to unbearable physical
torture by prison authorities. The prisoner had written the letter on a piece of paper and
managed to have it sent to Justice KrisnaIyer, Judge of Supreme Court. The said learned
Judge responded to that letter and from that response the judicial concern of the prisoner’s
right has been evolved.
The letter writers rarely possessed the lawyer’s expertise. Therefore, the facts they
have mentioned needed to be verified. This could be done by appointing Commissioners who
investigated the case for the letter writer. Justice Bhagwati in BandhuaMuktiMorcha case
stated above, justified that such letter writing cannot be expected acting pro bono public to
incur expenses out of his own pocket for going to a lawyer and preparing a regular writ
petition for being filed.

Scope of PIL: Illustrative Cases:

PIL cannot be treated as a means to redress all kinds of grievances that can be
redressed in all wrongs to the society. However, the usefulness of the PIL can be seen by
reference to cases entertained by the courts. For example, in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India:
AIR 1982 SC 149, (popularly known as Judges Transfer Case), the Supreme Court
entertained petitioners by lawyers challenging the constitutionality of the law. Minister’s
circular regarding transfer and non confirmation of Judges of High Courts. Similarly in
People’s Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India: AIR 1983 SC 130 (Popularly
known as Asid workers’ Case), a petition by a public spirited organization on behalf of the
persons belonging to socially and economically weaker section who are employed in the
construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games, 1982. In that case the
complaint was violation of various labour laws, which was entertained and held maintainable.
The Public Interest Litigation which is a Judge made provision has also been helped
in protecting the rights of women which are guaranteed by the Constitution and other statutes.
In Dr.UpendraBaxiVs. State of U.P.: AIR 1987 SC 191, the Public Interest Litigation was
initiated by a law professor. In that case of PIL, the Supreme Court issued a series of
administrative orders for improvement of the conditions in Agra and Delhi Protective Homes
for women.
A journalist complained of custodial violence on women prisoners while confined in
police lock-up in the city of Bombay on a letter addressed to the Supreme Court. The court
registered it as a writ petition as SheelaBarseVs. State of Maharastra: AIR 1983 SC 378.
The Court directed a fact finding team to visit the Bombay Central Jail and interview the
women prisoners as to whether they had been subjected to any torture or ill treatment. Based
on the report, the court issued various directives.
 Through a PIL, sexual exploitation of blind girls was redressed which remained for so
long unnoticed by the law enforcement agencies when it was a column in news item written
in Ananda Bazar Patrika, Calcutta describing sexual exploitation of blind girls students in a
school located at Behrampur, Orissa. The court was convinced that curtained directions were
necessary for the proper management of the institution and directed Union Government to
take up measures. Recently the Supreme Court made a very constructive use of PIL, in
coming to rescue of the working women who are sexually harassed at their work place. The
case is VisakhaVs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1997 SC 3011. The Bench consisting of 3
(three) Judges consisting of Chief Justice JS Verma, Justice SujataManohar and Justice BN.
Kirpal found that there are no suitable legislation in this sphere in India. The court with a
view to protect and enforce the fundamental human rights of working women, resorted to
direct judicial legislation by issuing many guidelines and norms to prevent such harassment.
In that case, the court observed that, absence of enacted law to provide for effective
enforcement of the basic human right to gender equality and guarantee against sexual
harassment at work places that the court laid down guidelines and norms specified for due
observance at all workplaces or other institutions until a legislation is enacted for the purpose.
The directions were held to be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislations are
enacted to occupy the field.

Legislative Response to the Directions of the Court in PIL Cases:

In Vishakha Case stated above, the Supreme Court issued guidelines as judicial law
making and the norms are to be treated as a binding law, until legislations are enacted to
occupy the field. After the judicial law came into being in the year 1997, the Parliament of
India enacted the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and incorporated the judicial law
declared in Vishakha Case, in inserting Section 354 A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A
general penal provision has been incorporated with the marginal note sexual harassment and
punishment for sexual harassment; enacting the guidelines in Vishakha Case into an enacted
law.
Another example to cite is the PIL being D.K. BasuVs. State of West Bengal: AIR
1997 SC 610, the Supreme Court in the proceeding under PIL, evolved custodial
jurisprudence and laid down a judicial law popularly known as an arrest memo. The
provision was silent in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court felt it necessary to fill
up the void by judicial verdict, till a legislation is passed by the competent legislature. An
arresting authority was put to the obligation of preparing an arrest memo at the time of every
arrest.
The Parliament of India by enacting Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2009
inserted Section 41B and 41D in enacting the judicial law evolved in the said PIL case.
Section 41B is the procedure of arrest and duties of officers making arrest. The provision has
brought in the view of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu. Section 41D incorporated the right
of the arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation.
In J.P. UnnikrisnanVs. State of A.P.: AIR 1993 Sc. 2173, by a PIL proceeding the
assistance of the court was sought where the Supreme Court emphasized the right of children
to receive education up to the primary age to be mandatory in India. At the relevant time right
to education was one of the Directive Principles under Article 45 where the State shall
endeavour to provide free and compulsory education of all until they complete the age of 14
years. The Supreme Court held that this is to be treated as right of children. The Constitution
86th Amendment Act, 2002 incorporated the Right to Education in the provision of
fundamental right as Article 21A and thereafter the Parliament of India enacted the law The
Right of Children ( to free and compulsory) Education Act, 2009. Thus, the law is laid the
foundation in pursuance of a judicial law in PIL proceedings in Unnikrisnan Case.
The PIL in Constitution of Green Bench:
Green Bench is a Special Bench for the protection of environment. The problem of
environmental pollution has been recognized as worldwide disaster. Urbanisation,
modernization and technological and industrial development has caused ecological
imbalance.
The Constitution 42nd Amendment, Act of 1976 made environment protection to be
the duty of the state as well as citizens to protect and improve the environment. Under Article
48A, it is provided that the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forest and the wild life of the country. Article 51A of the constitution
provides to protect and to improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life and to have compassion for living creatures directing to the citizens. The
constitution directs the state for the protection of environment and casts a duty to the citizens
to help the preservation of natural environment.
The judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court was active in the disputes touching
the environment hazards and admitted numerous PIL cases with a view to issuing appropriate
directions to protect the environment. As regards the constitution of Green Bench the
Supreme Court in a PIL case namely Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India:
AIR 1996 SC 2715, the Court found the matter of environmental hazards to be adjudicated by
the ordinary court to be not appropriate and issued direction to constitute Green Bench, a
Special Bench for protection of the environment.
Since the incorporation of Environment Protection in the Constitution in the year
1976, PIL cases have been entertained by the Supreme Court to give effect to the
constitutional imperatives and made the public known of their rights to live in a pollution free
environment. In the case of Ratlam Municipality Vs. Vardichand: AIR 1980 SC 1622, the
problem was that a nullah carrying filth and tainted water of alcohol plant emanating
obnoxious smell, was flowing openly through the inhabited area, polluting the environment.
The residents of a locality within the municipal limits of Ratlam are tormented by the stench
and stink caused by open drains and public excretion by nearby slum dwellers.
The Supreme Court directed the Municipality of Ratlan to take immediate action
within its statutory powers to stop effluents from alcohol plant, flowing in the streets and to
construct sufficient number of lavatories, within six months from the date of order.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. mentioned above is
another PIL case registered as a writ petition. The Supreme Court made a detailed order
regarding the working of the limestone queries in the Dehradun Moossorie Belt. There are
many lessees who obtained lease of different areas sectors and portions of limestone area.
The court observed that if the lessees of these limestone queries have obtained any stay order,
it will stand dissolved. If there are any subsisting leases, they shall stand terminated without
any liability to the state of U.P. If there are any suits or writ petitions for continuation of
unexpired leases in respect of any of these limestone queries pending, they will stand
dismissed.
In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India: AIR 1987 SC 765, the Supreme Court accepted
a PIL case initiated by M.C. Mehta. The sole question was whether Sriram Food and
Fertilizer Plant should be allowed to restart the Caustic Chlorine Plant. There was leakage of
Olcum Gas from one of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries and as a result of
which several persons were affected and one person died. Having convinced that it was not
possible to totally eliminate hazard or risk inherent in the very use of Science and
Technology, the court permitted the management of the said industry to restart subject to
compliance of 11 conditions which must be observed strictly. The court also suggested
Environment Courts to be set up on regional basis.
 In this case the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association also
filed applications for award of compensation to the victims of Gas leakage. The court
accepted the applications by holding that the court will act as a civil court and will determine
the entire matter involving complex question of fact, liability, damage and compensation
under its original jurisdiction.
In another case initiated by M.C. Mehta: AIR 1988 SC 1037 popularly known as
Ganga Water Pollution Case, the power of the Supreme Court has been invoked to issue
directions to all those who are responsible for pollution of the river Ganga affecting the lives
of large number of people. The court directed the tanneries to install primary treatment plant
by a certain date failing which the tanneries should have to stop their business. It is a short of
the rule that “polluter pays”.

Conclusion:
The court must be careful to ensure that the petitioner who approaches it is acting
bonafide and not for personal gain, private profit or for political or other lofty consideration.
The Courts therefore, advocate self restraint in entertaining and deciding PIL Petition’s.
Thus, the petition seeking preservation of disputed shrines of Mathura and Kashi are
summarily rejected in Md. AslamVs. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 48. In another Case KM
Natraj Vs. State of Karnataka: AIR 1997 SC Kant 36 PIL was filed seeking prohibition
on power-cuts causing deprivation to cricket fans from watching world cup tournaments
telecast, was rejected. Lastly, the view of a Jurist Dr. S.N. Jain may be quoted. If carefully
and prudently used, the Public Interest Litigation has great potential in correcting
administrative wrong, but if liberally and indiscriminately used in all kinds of cases, it may
turn into an engine of destruction.

TRANSCRIPT

Introduction
A traditional litigation mostly permitted only a party to the case / dispute, to bring a
suit or application against the opponent that may be a private person or against the
government. Under this traditional rule, howsoever the case has good merit, the case is liable
to be rejected, if such a case is found to be initiated by a meddlesome interloper who pokes
his nose in somebody else’s affairs and personally has nothing to do with the dispute.
But, a recent feature of Indian legal system has sprung up is the rapid growth and
development of Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL. In a number of cases, the
Supreme Court and the High Courts have entertained petitions and accepted letters written by
person or persons who acted pro bono publico.
PIL is totally different field of litigation and distinct from an ordinary traditional
litigation. This type of litigation is brought before the Court not for enforcement of individual
rights against another as done in ordinary litigation. But, it is instituted in order to redress the
grievance faced by the public like violation of the constitutional or legal rights of a large
number of people who are poor, ignorant or economically or socially disadvantaged person
and that their grievance is going unnoticed and unredressed.
 If public duties are to be enforced and public interests protected, then public spirited
persons or organizations must be allowed to move the court and act in furtherance of the
group interest. Both in the United Kingdom and United States a liberal view has come to be
adopted in allowing applications to be filed before the court to via public rights. Thus, the
technical concept of locus standi came to be diluted. In India, the PIL has come into being
and became a part of the constitutional system of redressal of grievance of public nature. Not
only filing of cases formally, even a letter addressed to the Chief Justice or a column in the
newspaper have been treated as a writ petition and came to be known as Public Interest
Litigation a Social Action Litigation and popularly known as PIL. The learners must be
sensitized in the following heads of study:
i) The enlargement in the system of Locus standi;
ii) The system of complaint by letters;
iii) The enforcement of public duties;
iv) The appointment of socio-legal Commissions for enquiry;
v) Some limitations in the use of this type of litigation.

The Locus Standi Rule:

The liberalization of the rule of locus standi is a feature of PIL. The court, in order to
reach the poor and the disadvantaged section of the society who are denied their entitlement
that it was a necessity to relax the rule of locus standi.InBandhuaMuktiMorcha Vs. India:
AIR 1984 SC 802, the Supreme Court justified the liberal rule of standing. The court
observed that, there is no limitation on in the words of clause (1) of Article 32 that
fundamental right which is sought to be enforced by moving the Supreme Court, nor does it
say that the Supreme Court should be moved only by a particular kind of proceeding. In this
case the Court observed that wherever there is violation of fundamental right, any one could
move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of that right. This was however qualified by the
view of the Supreme Court. It has been viewed that the court would not, in exercise of its
discretion, intervene at the instance of a meddlesome interloper or busybody and would
ordinarily insist that only a person whose fundamental right is violated, should be allowed to
move the court.

A new era of PIL movement started in 1982, when Justice P.N. Bhagwati of Supreme
Court laid down in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India: AIR 1982 SC 149 that “any member of
the public or social action group acting bona fide, can invoke the jurisdiction of the High
Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional
rights of persons who owing to social or economic or other disability, cannot approach the
court.

Letters are treated as Writ Petitions:

The Supreme Court started treating letters addressed to it as writ petitions in cases
involving larger public interest or gross violation of fundamental rights. In
BandhuaMuktiMorchaVs. Union of India mentioned above, on the basis of a letter addressed
to the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court granted relief in cases of bonded labourers. In
VeenaSethiVs. State of Bihar: AIR 1983 SC 339, the court granted relief in the case of
illegal detention. In DK. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal: AIR 1997 SC 610, the Court
received a letter from the Secretary of the Legal Services Association of West Bengal
complaining custodial violence. The court issued directions relating to custodial deaths and
tortures. In Rural Litigations and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P.: AIR 1988 SC 2187
the court took role an educationist of environmental pollution and issued necessary orders. In
some cases the courts have taken suomoto cognizance of letters to editor in newspapers for
example. In Ram PiyariVs. Union of India: AIR 1988 Rajasthan 124 the Rajasthan High
Court has treated a column in the newspaper as a writ petition and granted relief.

The courts in the past mostly followed adversarial method that the petitioner must
place all the relevant documentary or oral evidence for the appreciation of the court. But in
PIL matters, the courts started following the inquisitorial method. The court appointed
Commissioners from among the Advocates, Professors, Magistrates, Journalist or other
responsible persons for collecting facts and data in PIL cases involving the underprivileged.
In Khatri Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1981 SC 928 which was known as Bhagalpur Prisoners
Blinding case, the Supreme Court ordered some eye specialists to ascertain the nature and
extent of harm said to have caused to the prisoners, in their eyes. In BandhuaMuktiMorcha
discussed above a noted sociologist was sent as Commissioner to inquire into working
conditions etc. of labourers in the stone quarries of Faridabad.

The court responded in Sunil BatraVs. Delhi Administration: AIR 1980 SC 1579. A
letter was written by Sunil Batra a prison inmate drawing the attention of the Supreme Court
to the miserable lot of a fellow prisoner who was being subjected to unbearable physical
torture by prison authorities. The prisoner had written the letter on a piece of paper and
managed to have it sent to Justice KrisnaIyer, Judge of Supreme Court. The said learned
Judge responded to that letter and from that response the judicial concern of the prisoner’s
right has been evolved.

The letter writers are rarely possessed the lawyer’s expertise. Therefore, the facts they
have mentioned needed to be verified. This could be done by appointing Commissioners who
investigated the case for the letter writer. Justice Bhagwati in BandhuaMuktiMorcha case
stated above, justified that such letter writing cannot be expected acting pro bono public to
incur expenses out of his own pocket for going to a lawyer and preparing a regular writ
petition for being filed.

Scope of PIL: Illustrative Cases

PIL cannot be treated as a means to redress all kinds of grievances that can be
redressed in all wrongs to the society. However, the usefulness of the PIL can be seen by
reference to cases entertained by the courts. For example, in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India:
AIR 1982 SC 149, (popularly known as Judges Transfer Case), the Supreme Court
entertained petitioners by lawyers challenging the constitutionality of the law. Minister’s
circular regarding transfer and non confirmation of Judges of High Courts. Similarly in
People’s Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India: AIR 1983 SC 130 (Popularly
known as Asid workers’ Case), a petition by a public spirited organization on behalf of the
persons belonging to socially and economically weaker section who are employed in the
construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games, 1982. In that case the
complaint was violation of various labour laws, which was entertained and held maintainable.

The Public Interest Litigation which is a Judge made provision has also been helped
in protecting the rights of women which are guaranteed by the Constitution and other statutes.
In Dr. UpendraBaxiVs. State of U.P.: AIR 1987 SC 191, the Public Interest Litigation was
initiated by a law professor. In that case of PIL, the Supreme Court issued a series of
administrative orders for improvement of the conditions in Agra and Delhi Protective Homes
for women.

A journalist complained of custodial violence on women prisoners while confined in

police lock-up in the city of Bombay on a letter addressed to the Supreme Court. The court
registered it as a writ petition as SheelaBarseVs. State of Maharastra: AIR 1983 SC 378.
The Court directed a fact finding team to visit the Bombay Central Jail and interview the
women prisoners as to whether they had been subjected to any torture or ill treatment. Based
on the report, the court issued various directives.

Through a PIL, sexual exploitation of blind girls was redressed which remained for so
long unnoticed by the law enforcement agencies was a column in news item written in
Ananda Bazar Patrika, Calcutta describing sexual exploitation of blind girls students in a
school located at Behrampur, Orissa. The court was convinced that curtained directions were
necessary for the proper management of the institution and directed Union Government to
take up measures. Recently the Supreme Court made a very constructive use of PIL, in
coming to rescue of the working women who are sexually harassed at their work place. The
case is VisakhaVs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1997 SC 3011. The Bench consisting of 3
(three) Judges consisting of Chief Justice JS Verma, Justice SujataManohar and Justice BN.
Kirpal found that there are no suitable legislation in this sphere in India. The court with a
view to protect and enforce the fundamental human rights of working women, resorted to
direct judicial legislation by issuing many guidelines and norms to prevent such harassment.

In that case, the court observed that, absence of enacted law to provide for effective
enforcement of the basic human right to gender equality and guarantee against sexual
harassment at work places that the court laid down guidelines and norms specified for due
observance at all workplaces or other institutions until a legislation is enacted for the purpose.
The directions were held to be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislations are
enacted to occupy the field.

Legislative Response to the Directions of the Court in PIL Cases:

In Vishakha Case stated above, the Supreme Court issued guidelines as judicial law
making and the norms are to be treated as a binding law, until legislations are enacted to
occupy the field. After the judicial law came into being in the year 1997, the Parliament of
India enacted the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and incorporated the judicial law
declared in Vishakha Case, in inserting Section 354 A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A
general penal provision has been incorporated with the marginal note sexual harassment and
punishment for sexual harassment; enacting the guidelines in Vishakha Case into an enacted
law.
Another example to cite is the PIL being D.K. BasuVs. State of West Bengal: AIR
1997 SC 610, the Supreme Court in the proceeding under PIL, evolved custodial
jurisprudence and laid down a judicial law popularly known as an arrest memo. The
provision was silent in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the court felt it necessary to fill
up the void by judicial verdict, till a legislation is passed by the competent legislature. An
arresting authority was put to the obligation of preparing an arrest memo at the time of every
arrest.
The Parliament of India by enacting Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2009
inserted Section 41B and 41D in enacting the judicial law evolved in the said PIL case.
Section 41B is the procedure of arrest and duties of officers making arrest. The provision has
brought in the view of the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu. Section 41D incorporated the right
of the arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during investigation.

In J.P. UnnikrisnanVs. State of A.P.: AIR 1993 Sc. 2173, by a PIL proceeding the
assistance of the court was sought where the Supreme Court emphasized the right of children
to receive education up to the primary age to be mandatory in India. At the relevant time right
to education was one of the Directive Principles under Article 45 where the State shall
endeavour to provide free and compulsory education of all until they complete the age of 14
years. The Supreme Court held that this is to be treated as right of children. The Constitution
86th Amendment Act, 2002 incorporated the Right to Education in the provision of
fundamental right as Article 21A and thereafter the Parliament of India enacted the law The
Right of Children ( to free and compulsory) Education Act, 2009. Thus, the law is laid
foundation in pursuance of a judicial law in PIL proceedings in Unnikrisnan Case.

The PIL in Constitution of Green Bench:

Green Bench is a Special Bench for the protection of environment. The problem of
environmental pollution has been recognized as world wide disaster. Urbanisation,
modernization and technological and industrial development has caused ecological
imbalance.

The Constitution 42nd Amendment, Act of 1976 made environment protection to be

the duty of the state as well as citizens to protect and improve the environment. Under Article
48A, it is provided that the state shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and
to safeguard the forest and the wild life of the country. Article 51A of the constitution
provides to protect and to improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wild life and to have compassion for living creatures directing to the citizens. The
constitution directs the state for the protection of environment and casts a duty to the citizens
to help the preservation of natural environment.

The judiciary and particularly the Supreme Court was active in the disputes touching
the environment hazards and admitted numerous PIL cases with a view to issuing appropriate
directions to protect the environment. As regards the constitution of Green Bench the
Supreme Court in a PIL case namely Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India:
AIR 1996 SC 2715, the Court found the matter of environmental hazards to be adjudicated by
the ordinary court to be not appropriate and issued direction to constitute Green Bench, a
Special Bench for protection of the environment.

Since the incorporation of Environment Protection in the Constitution in the year

1976, PIL cases have been entertained by the Supreme Court to give effect to the
constitutional imperatives and made the public known of their rights to live in a pollution free
environment. In the case of Ratlam Municipality Vs. Vardichand: AIR 1980 SC 1622, the
problem was that a nullah carrying filth and tainted water of alcohol plant emanating
obnoxious smell, was flowing openly through the inhabited area, polluting the environment.
The residents of a locality within the municipal limits of Ratlam are tormented by the stench
and stink caused by open drains and public excretion by nearby slum dwellers.

The Supreme Court directed the Municipality of Ratlan to take immediate action
within its statutory powers to stop effluents from alcohol plant, flowing in the streets and to
construct sufficient number of lavatories, within six months from the date of order.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. mentioned above is
another PIL case registered as a writ petition. The Supreme Court made a detailed order
regarding the working of the limestone queries in the Dehradun Moossorie Belt. There are
many lessees who obtained lease of different areas sectors and portions of limestone area.
The court observed that if the lessees of these limestone queries have obtained any stay order,
will stand dissolved. If there are any subsisting leases, they shall stand terminated without
any liability to the state of U.P. If there are any suits or writ petitions for continuation of
unexpired leases in respect of any of these limestone queries pending, they will stand
dismissed.

In M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India: AIR 1987 SC 765, the Supreme Court accepted
a PIL case initiated by M.C. Mehta. The sole question was whether Sriram Food and
Fertilizer Plant should be allowed to restart the Caustic Chlorine Plant. There was leakage of
Olcum Gas from one of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries and as a result of
which several persons were affected and one person died. Having convinced that it was not
possible to totally eliminate hazard or risk inherent in the very use of Science and
Technology, the court permitted the management of the said industry to restart subject to
compliance of 11 conditions which must be observed strictly. The court also suggested
Environment Courts to be set up on regional basis.

In this case the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association also
filed applications for award of compensation to the victims of Gas leakage. The court
accepted the applications by holding that the court will act as a civil court and will determine
the entire matter involving complex question of fact, liability, damage and compensation
under its original jurisdiction.
 In another case initiated by M.C. Mehta: AIR 1988 SC 1037 popularly known as
Ganga Water Pollution Case, the power of the Supreme Court has been invoked to issue
directions to all those who are responsible for pollution of the river Ganga affecting the lives
of large number of people. The court directed the tanneries to install primary treatment plant
by a certain date failing which the tanneries should have to stop their business. It is a short of
the rule that “polluter pays”.

Conclusion:
The court must be careful to ensure that the petitioner who approaches it is acting
bonafide and not for personal gain, private profit or for political or other lofty consideration.
The Courts therefore, advocate self restraint in entertaining and deciding PIL Petition’s.
Thus, the petition seeking preservation of disputed shrines of Mathura and Kashi are
summarily rejected in Md. AslamVs. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 48. In another Case KM
Natraj Vs. State of Karnataka: AIR 1997 SC Kant 36 PIL was filed seeking prohibition
on power-cuts causing deprivation to cricket fans from watching world cup tournaments
telecast, was rejected. Lastly, the view of a Jurist Dr. S.N. Jain may be quoted. If carefully
and prudently used, the Public Interest Litigation has great potential in correcting
administrative wrong, but if liberally and indiscriminately used in all kinds of cases, it may
turn into an engine of destruction.

FAQ:
Q1. What is the traditional rule of litigation?
Ans. Howsoever the case has good merit, the case is liable to be rejected if the case is
found to be initiated by a meddlesome interloper.

Q2. What is the special feature of PIL?

Ans. Relaxation of the rule of locus standi and permitting public spirited persons to knock
the door of justice and ever by a letter.

Q3. What is the philosophy behind entertaining PIL cases?

Ans. If public duties are to be enforced, then public spirited persons be allowed to move
the court in furtherance of group interest.

Q4. What are the ways for making a PIL?

Ans. By filing a Writ Application, by writing letter to the Judge, by suomoto notice taken
from a column of a newspaper.

Q5. What is the procedurel followed in PIL case?

Ans. Inquisitional method and order experts to inquire and submit report.

Q6. Since PIL is not expensive and even a letter may be treated as PIL, can it be
taken for granted that it is solution of all kinds of disputes.
Ans. No, it is the power of the Supreme Court and circumscribed by the Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

Q7. What is the constitutional status of PIL?

Ans. A law has been made but not incorporated to the Constitution as yet.

Q8. Women deserve special protection and what is the role of PIL?
Ans. PIL has also helped in protecting rights of women like custodial violence of women.

Q9. What is the role of PIL to fill up the absence of legislation?

Ans. In Vishakha’s case the Supreme Court made judicial law for sexual harassment at
workplace.

Q10. What is a prominent role of PIL to protect environment?

Ans. The Supreme Court played a prominent role in protecting environment. The rule
‘polluter pays’ and Constitution of Green Bench can be mentioned.

Glossary:

Suomoto - by a spontaneous motion of the authority without any

body’s complaint.
Adversarial - It is a system of deciding the case where the parties are
to discharge the burden to place evidence before the
court.
Inquisitional - It is the system which does not cast the petitions the
burden but, the court is to inquire in order to satisfy the
delegations by means of issuing commissions.
Green Bench - A special terminology coined by the Supreme Court
meaning special Bench in the court for adjudication of
environmental hazards.
Meddlesome Interloper - Persons who has no connection, right, interest or title in a dispute
but knocks the door of the court claiming redressal of
grievances which he is foreign.
Pro Bon Publico - Litigation espoused by public spirited person especially in
United States.

References:

1. Basu, D.D. 1994: Human Rights in Constitutional Law, PHI Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
2. Batt, D.K. 1998: Judicial Activism though Public Interest Litigation: The Indian
Experience, AIR Journal 120.
3. Dr. Sharma Raj Pal, 1997: Environmental Pollution & role of the Judiciary: AIR
Journal 34.
5. Justice Verma, J.S.: 1997: Constitutional Obligation of the Judiciary: AIR Journal
167.
4. Mustaba, Faizan, 1997: Liability of Government Lawlessness: AIR Journal 39.
7. Reddy, GB. 1991: Role of Judiciary in Protection of Human Rights in India: AIR
Journal 148.
6. Sathe, S.P. 2010: Judicial Activism in India: 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
8. Takwani, GK. 2008: Lectures on Administrative law, 4th ed. Eastern Book
Company.

Links:
www.Law4all.com
www.indiastudychannel.com
www.books.google.com