legalserviceindia.com /legal/article-5344-public-interest-litigation-pil-.

html

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

22-28 minutes

Justice without force is impotent;

force without justice is tyranny - Pascal in Pensees.
There are times when even justice brings harm with it - Sophocles in Electra.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the use of the law to advance human rights and equality, or raise issues of broad public
concern. It helps advance the cause of minority or disadvantaged groups or individuals. Public interest cases may arise
from both public and private law matters. Public law concerns the various rules and regulations that govern the exercise of
power by public bodies. Private law concerns those cases in which a public body is not involved, and can be found in areas
such as employment law or family law. Public interest litigation is most commonly used to challenge the decisions of public
authorities by judicial review.

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.

In Indian law, means litigation for the protection of Public Interest. It is Litigation introduced in a court of Law, not by the
aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary for the exercise of court�s
jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the violation of his or her rights should personally approach the court.
Public Interest Litigation is the power given to the public by courts through Judicial activism. Such cases may occur when
the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been
suppressed or encouraged upon.

Public Interest Litigation 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 (17th Chief Justice of India). PIL deals with
cases which means that even people who are directly involved in the case may bring matters of Public Interest to the court.
It is the court privilege to entertain the application.

The concept of PIL is suited to the Principles enshrined in Article 39 A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver
prompt Social Justice with the help of Law

In Case: S P Gupta vs. Union of India the Supreme Court of India defined the term �Public Interest Litigation� in the
Indian Context.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in Court. Filling of PIL is not
as difficult as a usual legal case it was even noticed that the Letters and Telegrams addressed to the court and have been
heard as PILs. PIL is a rule of law declared by the court of record. However the person who files 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, Justice S.H. Kapadia stated that the substantial Fines would be imposed on Litigants who
files such types of Petitions which don�t have any serious purpose or valued PILs. (Frivolous PIL) The 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.

As there was high increase in the Frivolous (with less interest/ not having any serious purpose or value at large or in
public) PILs which was even expressed by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by showing concern over the misuse of
PILs. And it was even decided by the committee to form certain tool and guidelines against Frivolous PILs.

Further with this issue the judgment was passed by stating that �this court wants to make clear that the action at law is
not a game of Chess�. A Litigant who approaches the Court must come with clean hands. He cannot speak or escape the
point and matter of discussion throughout the proceeding.

Though he needs to be consistent throughout the proceeding:

1. The parameters under which the PILs can be entertained was cited such as:
a. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the Petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard
b. Otherwise the Petition is Liable to be dismissed at the Threshold.
c. For large numbers of PILs the bench spoke for the Supreme Court by stating that the Judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that behind the Beautiful Veil of Public Interest an Ugly Private Malice, Vested Interest
or Publicity seeking is not Lurking.
d. With regards to this Supreme Court of India must not allow its process to be abused for oblique consideration
by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind.

Brief Overview to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with Judgments

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 Case: Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar 1979 that focused on the Inhuman
Condition of Prisoners 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 it
was noted 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.

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.

1. Public Interest Litigation gives wider description to the right of Equality, Life and Personality which is guaranteed
under Part III of the Constitution of India
2. It also functions as an effective instrument for changes in the society or social welfare.
3. Through PIL any Public or Community at Large or Organization or any such type of Public Group can take Legal
Remedy or Seek on Behalf of the Oppressed Class.
4. In Public Interest Litigation Rule of Locus Standi is followed:
Rule of Locus Standi:
It is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action
challenged to support that party�s participation in the case.

It refers to a right of a party to appear and be heard before a court of Law or to Institute a Suit or an Action before the
Court.

An individual cannot bring a complaint challenging the constitutionality of law unless he/she can show that they have
been harmed or affected by the law.

Otherwise the court would conclude that the complainant �lacke standi� to file that complaint and will reject the
lawsuit without even taking into consideration

5. In PIL though a person is not aggrieved but socially and spiritually motivated can file Petition.
6. The Court Stamp Fee Act is not applicable to PIL.
7. The decision given by the court on PIL is having general application.
8. In PIL the person who appears or approaches the court for redressal or public wrong or public injury has sufficient
interest in the proceeding and is acting in bonafide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation.

PIL- A Boon

1. In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) vigilant citizens of the country can find an inexpensive legal remedy because there
is only a nominal fixed court fee involved in this.
2. Further, through the so-called PIL, the litigants can focus attention on and achieve results pertaining to larger public
issues, especially in the fields of human rights, consumer welfare and environment.

Parties against whom Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filled

1. State Government
2. Central Government
3. Municipal Authority
4. Any local or other authorities within the delimitations of India and Controlled directly/indirectly by the government
5. Parliament of India, Legislative Assemblies/Councils of all States and Union Territories
6. Other authorities

These all authorities and departments for filling PIL come under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. 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.

Before filling of PIL against certain authorities one should give prior information or complain regarding certain issues to the
certain department and should provide a certain time period to the concert department, council, authorities to do the
needful and to solve the issue by taking it into consideration and also in favor of a large amount of public, for the benefit
and for the interest on the side of public or non profitable organization.

But the PIL can�t be filled against any such particular or individual Private Party, though Private Person can be included in
PIL as Respondent after concerned of State Authority.
Illustration: If there is any Private Company and is creating some disturbance in society then PIL can be filled against State
Government, Board or Committee of State under whom this Act comes and also in PIL include the Private Factory.

Abuse of PIL:
However, the development of PIL has also uncovered its pitfalls and drawbacks. As a result, the apex court itself has been
compelled to lay down certain guidelines to govern the management and disposal of PILs. And the abuse of PIL is also
increasing alongwith its extended and multifaceted use.

of late, many of the PIL activists in the country have found the PIL as a handy tool of harassment since frivolous cases
could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil litigation and deals could then be
negotiated with the victims of stay orders obtained in the so-called PILs.

Just as a weapon meant for defence can be used equally effectively for offence, the lowering of the locus standi
requirement has permitted privately motivated interests to pose as public interests.

The abuse of PIL has become more rampant than its use and genuine causes either receded to the background or began
to be viewed with the suspicion generated by spurious causes mooted by privately motivated interests in the disguise of
the so-called public interests.

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.

Public Interest is a Very Unruly Horse � Kapil Sibal

Wherefore for the Public Interest and benefits of Human Society it is requisite that the highest obligations possible should
be laid upon the consciences of men � Isaac Barrow
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - Martin Luther King,Jr.

Under what Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filled:

1. Article 32 of Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court of India

 2. Article 226 of Indian Constitution, in the High Court
3. Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code, in a Magistrate�s Court

Procedure for filing Public Interest Litigation (PIL

1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filled in the same manner as a Writ Petition is filled either in Supreme Court or High
Court
2. If PIL is filled in High Court then Two Copies (2) of the Petition have to be filed and if in Supreme Court then Five
Sets/Copes (4+1) of the Petition is to be filled.
3. Advance copy of Petition should be served to Respondent/Opposite Party by giving it an utmost importance as its
necessity.
4. Proof of serving a copy of the petition to the respondent should also be affixed with the Petition which can be either
in a form of Postal or Courier Receipt.
5. A Court Fee of Rs. 50 for Respondent has to be affixed to the Petition.

Supreme Court has laid down or has issued a set of PIL Guidelines under which the following matters will not be allowed
as PILs

1. Landlord � Tenant matters

2. Service matters
3. Matters pertaining to Pension and Gratuity
4. Complaints against State or Central Government, Department and Local Bodies except those relating to items 1 to
10 mentioned in the list of Guidelines
5. Admission to Medical and other educational Institutions
6. Petitions for Early hearing of Cases pending in High Court or Subordinate Courts
7. Any such case which has been brought as a PIL for self benefit or self interest or any such for Business Profit or
Revenge

Here are the few laid down issues on which PIL can be filled and it has been accepted from a last frequent period of times

1. Bonded labour matters

2. Matters of neglected children
3. Exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages to them (except in individual cases)
4. Matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Economically
Backward Classes, either by co-villagers or by police
5. Matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance
of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life,
6. Petitions from riot victims
7. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc
8. Food adulteration
9. Maintenance of heritage and culture
10. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police, death in police custody.
11. Other matters of public importance

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.

Few Landmark PILs filled in India

1. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan

2. M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
3. Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar
4. SP Gupta vs. Union of India
5. Kalyaneshwari vs. Union of India: The Honourable Court considered it as Writ Petition and stated that, 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�.
6. Indian Banks� Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors: Thus in this case
Supreme Court by considering the matter stated that � Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public
interest case.
7. Javed vs. State of Haryana
8. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India
9. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1984 SC
10. Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1978 SC
11. Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India and Another AIR 2003 SC
12. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and Others (1996)
13. State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011)
14. Manohar Lal Sharma vs. the Principal Secretary (2014)
15. Mohd. Haroon vs. Union of India (2013)
16. Ajay Bansal vs. Union of India (2013)

Many more such PILs were filled which really changed the Justice and many more I would like to submit Cases
explaining Locus Standi of PILs

1. Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. M. V. Dabholkar and Others 1976 SCR 306
2. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Others AIR 1976 SC 1455
3. S.P. Anand vs. H.D. Deve Gowda and Others AIR 1997 SC 272,
4. D.C.Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1987 SCR (1) 798
5. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar vs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 149
6. Hussainara Khatoon & Others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1369

Conclusion
Public Interest Litigation means Litigation filled in a Court of Law for the Protection of Public Interest. It consists of any
matter where the interest of Public at Large is affected and can be redressed by filing a PIL in a Court of Law.

PIL is a use of litigation, or legal action, which seeks to advance the cause of a minority or disadvantaged groups or
individuals, or which raises issues of broad public concern. It is a way of using the law strategically to effect social change.

Public Interest Litigation is a petition that an individual or a non-government organisation or citizen groups, can file in the
court seeking justice in an issue that has a larger public interest. It aims at giving common people an access to the
judiciary to obtain legal redress for a greater cause.

PIL is something in which the public, the community at large has something pecuniary interest, or some interest by which
their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interest of the
particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by the citizens generally in affair of
local, State or national government.