DEWANGAN |1

LIFE AND WORKS OF P.N.BHAGWATI

Project submitted to:

Mrs. Alka Mehta

(Faculty of English)

Project submitted by

Siddharth Dewangan

Semester II; Section: B

Roll no. 163

07.04.2015

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

UPARWARA, NEW RAIPUR, C.G.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |2

CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled Life and Works of P.N.Bhagwati, submitted
to HNLU, Raipur, is record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of Mrs.
Alka Mehta, Faculty Member English, HNLU Raipur

SIDDHARTH DEWANGAN

ROLL NO.: 163

SEMESTER – II

B.A.L.L.B (Hons.)

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Life and Works of P.N.Bhagwati”.

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous co-
operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words
is beyond the domain of my lexicon.

I express my deepest regard and gratitude for, Mrs. Alka Mehta, Faculty of English. Her
consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense
help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing
extensive database resources in the Library and access to Internet.

Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Siddharth Dewangan

Semester II

Roll no: 163

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |4

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ………..…………………………………………… 5

2. EARLY LIFE …………………………………………………………… 6

3. WORKS OF JUSTICE P.N.BHAGWATI ……………………………. 7

4. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND CONTRIBUTION TO PIL …… 7

5. ABSOLUTE LIABILITY ……………………………………………… 12

6. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….. 15

7. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………. 16

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |5

INTRODUCTION

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati , born on December 21, 1921, was the 17th Chief
Justice of India, serving from 12 July 1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. He
introduced the concepts of Public Interest Litigation and Absolute liability in India and for
this reason is held along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a pioneer of judicial
activism in the country.

P. N. Bhagwati was born in Gujarat. His father was Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, a
Supreme Court judge. He is the brother of the economist Jagdish Bhagwati and the
neurosurgeon S.N. Bhagwati. He is married to Prabhavati and the couple have three
daughters, Parul, Pallavi and Sonali. Pallavi is a senior partner at a leading Indian law firm.

Bhagwati received his education in Mumbai. He studied at Elphinstone College, taking a

Mathematics (Hons.) degree from Bombay University in 1941. In 1942, he courted arrest
during the Indian Independence Movement and went underground for four months. He later
received a law degree from Bombay University after studying at Government Law College,
Bombay.

Bhagwati began his career practicing at the Bombay High Court. In July 1960, he was
appointed a judge of the Gujarat High Court. In September 1967, he was appointed the Chief
Justice of that court. On two occasions, he acted (briefly) as Governor of Gujarat (7
December 1967 to 25 December 1967 and 17 March 1973 to 3 April 1973. In July 1973, he
was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. In August 1985, he became Chief
Justice of India.

As a Supreme Court judge, Bhagwati introduced the concepts of public interest

litigation and absolute liability to the Indian judicial system. He is therefore held, along with
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to have pioneered judicial activism in the country.

There is one award in the name of Justice Bhagwati, and a moot court competition in the
name of him.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |6

EARLY LIFE

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati , born on December 21, 1921, was the 17th Chief
Justice of India, serving from 12 July 1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. He
introduced the concepts of Public Interest Litigation and Absolute liability in India and for
this reason is held along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a pioneer of judicial
activism in the country.

P. N. Bhagwati was born in Gujarat. His father was Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, a
Supreme Court judge. He is the brother of the economist Jagdish Bhagwati and the
neurosurgeon S.N. Bhagwati. He is married to Prabhavati and the couple have three
daughters, Parul, Pallavi and Sonali. Pallavi is a senior partner at a leading Indian law firm.

Bhagwati received his education in Mumbai. He studied at Elphinstone College, taking a

Mathematics (Hons.) degree from Bombay University in 1941. In 1942, he courted arrest
during the Indian Independence Movement and went underground for four months. He later
received a law degree from Bombay University after studying at Government Law College,
Bombay.

Bhagwati began his career practicing at the Bombay High Court. In July 1960, he was
appointed a judge of the Gujarat High Court. In September 1967, he was appointed the Chief
Justice of that court. On two occasions, he acted (briefly) as Governor of Gujarat (7
December 1967 to 25 December 1967 and 17 March 1973 to 3 April 1973. In July 1973, he
was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of India. In August 1985, he became Chief
Justice of India.

As a Supreme Court judge, Bhagwati introduced the concepts of public interest

litigation and absolute liability to the Indian judicial system. He is therefore held, along with
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to have pioneered judicial activism in the country.

He was awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian award, in 2007.

A controversial judgment of Bhagwati was in the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case

(popularly referred to as the ADM Jabalpur case or the habeas corpus case) where he decreed
that during Emergency, a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (Habeas Corpus) can be
suspended. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance attached

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |7

to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. Bhagwati later agreed with popular

opinion that this judgement was short-sighted and "apologised" for the same.

WORKS OF JUSTICE P.N.BHAGWATI

As a judge of the Supreme Court, he introduced the concept of “Public Interest Litigation”
(PIL) and “absolute liability” to the Indian Judicial System. He is therefore held, along with
JusticeV. R. Krishna Iyer, to have pioneered judicial activism in the country. He also made a
valuable contribution to the legal aid in India.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND CONTRIBUTION TO PIL

"Public interest Litigation", in simple words, means, litigation filed in a court of law, for
the protection of "Public Interest", such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, constructional
hazards etc.

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. Although, the main and only
focus of such litigation is only "Public Interest" there are various areas where a PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION can be filed.

IN BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY : "Public Interest Litigation means a legal action

initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which
the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected."

Public Interest Litigation's explicit purpose is to alienate the suffering off all those who have
borne the brunt of insensitive treatment at the hands of fellow human being. Transparency in
public life & fair judicial action are the right answer to check increasing menace of violation
of legal rights. Traditional rule was that the right to move the Supreme Court is only available
to those whose fundamental rights are infringed.

The court now permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance
of “Public spirited citizens" for the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person
or group of persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are
unable to approach court for relief.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |8

Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of public having sufficient interest for
public injury arising from violation of legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is
absolutely necessary for maintaining Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law
and justice.

Public Interest Litigation filed by a human right activist fighting for general public interest
that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical profession to give medical aid
to every injured citizen as soon as possible without waiting for any procedural formalities.

During the last few years, Judicial Activism has opened up a new dimension for the judicial
process and has given a new hope to the millions who starve for their livelihood. There is no
reason why the Court should not adopt activist approach similar to Court in America, so as to
provide remedial amplitude to the citizens of India.

Supreme Court has now realised its proper role in welfare state and it is using its new strategy
for the development of a whole new corpus of law for effective and purposeful
implementation of Public Interest Litigation. One can simply approach to the Court for the
enforcement of fundamental rights by writing a letter or post card to any Judge. That
particular letters based on true facts and concept will be converted to writ petition. When
Court welcome Public Interest Litigation, its attempt is to endure observance of social and
economic programs frame for the benefits of have-nots and the handicapped. Public Interest
Litigation has proved a boon for the common men. Public Interest Litigation has set right a
number of wrongs committed by an individual or by society. By relaxing the scope of Public
Interest Litigation, Court has brought legal aid at the doorsteps of the teeming millions of
Indians; which the executive has not been able to do despite a lot of money is being spent on
new legal aid schemes operating at the central and state level. Supreme Court's pivotal role in
expanding the scope of Public Interest Litigation as a counter balance to the lethargy and
inefficiency of the executive is commendable.

ORIGIN OF PIL

The term "PIL" originated in the United States in the mid-1980s. Since the nineteenth
century, various movements in that country had contributed to public interest law, which was
part of the legal aid movement. The first legal aid office was established in New York in
1876. In the 1960s the PIL movement began to receive financial support from the office of

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |9

Economic Opportunity, This encouraged lawyers and public spirited persons to take up cases
of the under-privileged and fight against dangers to environment and public health and
exploitation of consumers and the weaker sections.
 
HISTORY OF PIL IN INDIA
PIL had begun in India towards the end of 1970s and came into full bloom in the 80s. Justice
V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice PM. Bhagwati, honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of
India. They delivered some landmark judgements which opened up new vistas in PIL.
 
OBJECTIVES OF PIL
According to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, PIL is a process, of obtaining justice for the people,
of voicing people's grievances through the legal process. The aim of PIL is to give to the
common people of this country access to the courts to obtain legal redress.
 
NATURE OF PIL
According to Justice Bhagwati "PIL is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a
challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights
meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them
social and economic justice which is the significant tune of our Constitution. The government
and its officers must welcome PIL because it would provide them an accession to examine
whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and entitlements or whether
they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and
powerful sections of the community... when the court entertains PIL, it does not do so in a
cavilling spirit or in a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or
seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue
programmes, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the
handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also
the constitutional obligation of the executive. The court is thus merely assisting in the
realization of the constitutional objective," (AIR 1984 SC 802)
 

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 10

CONSTITUTIONAL BACKING
The new and liberal interpretation of the fundamental rights found in Part III and the
Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution of India. They are drawn
from the revolutionary documents like the American Bill of Rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Articles 32 and 228 of the Constitution that give power to any citizen to move the Supreme
Court or High Courts wherever there is an infringement of a fundamental right?
.
ISSUES RELATED TO PIL
Issues relating to the following matters can be taken in to PIL
 1. Basic amenities such as roads, water, medicines, electricity, primary school,        primary
health centre, bus service, etc,
2. Rehabilitation of displaced persons.
3. Identification and rehabilitation of bonded and child labourers.
4. Illegal detention of arrested persons.
5. Torture of persons in police custody.
6. Custodial deaths.
7. Protection of prisoner's rights.
8. Jail reform.
9. Speedy trials of under trials.
10. Ragging in colleges.
11. Atrocities by police.
12. Atrocities against SCs/STs.
13. Neglect of inmates of government welfare homes,
14. Children in custody.
15. Adoption of children.
16. Corruption charges against public servants.
17. Maintenance of law and order,
18. Payment of minimum wages.
19. Legal aid to the poor.
20. Starvation deaths.
21. Indecent television programmes.
22. Prohibition.
23. Environmental pollution.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 11

24. Unauthorised eviction,

25. Protection of pavement and slum dwellers.
28. Dowry deaths.
29. Implementation of welfare laws.
30. Reform of illegal social customs such as sati, child marriage, devdasi system, etc.
31. Violation of fundamental rights of the weaker sections.

A PIL CAN BE FILED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE

FULFILLED:
o   There must be a public injury and public wrong caused by the wrongful act or omission of
the state or public authority.
o    It is for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the community who
are downtrodden, ignorant and whose fundamental and constitutional rights have been
infringed.
o    It must not be frivolous litigation by persons having vested interests.           

WHO MAY FILE A PIL?

The Supreme Court (SC), through its successive judgements has relaxed the strict rule of
'locus standi' applicable to private litigation.

ANY PERSON CAN FILE A PIL PROVIDED:

He is a member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an
action for redressal of public wrong or public injury.

He is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.

His action is not motivated by personal gain or any other oblique consideration.

HOW TO FILE A PIL:

A PIL may be filed like a write petition. However, in the past the SC has treated even letters
addressed to the court as PIL. In People’s Democratic union v Union of India, a letter
addressed by the petitioner organization seeking a direction against the respondents for
ensuring observance of the provisions of famous labour laws in relation to workmen
employed in the construction work of projects connected with the Asian games was
entertained as a PIL.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 12

The SC has encouraged the filing of PIL for tackling issues related to environment, human
rights etc.

DIFFERENT WAYS TO FILE A PIL

The different ways PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court and High Courts are;
1.      Sending letter petitions with relevant facts and documents to the Chief Justice of the
concerned court. The matter must be sent by registered post.
2.      By directly filing the PIL in the court through the Free Legal Service Committee of the
court.
3.      Directly filing the case with the help of any PIL lawyer.
4. Filing the case through NGOs or PIL firms.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Derived from British Common Law, this says any industry engaged in hazardous activity is
liable for adverse consequences even if the industry/enterprise is not directly responsible for
them. However, mitigating conditions could be factored in, like acts of god, acts of strangers
etc.” 
 While ruling on the Oleum case, Justice Bhagwati went beyond strict liability to create the
principle of absolute liability. The exemptions were done away with. The Court’s order said:
“Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm
results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and
absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is
not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict
liability.” 

Absolute liability in its basic sense refers to no fault liability, in which the wrong doer is not
provided with exceptions which are provided in rule of strict liability. Absolute liability is
more stringent from of strict liability, the rule laid by Rylands v. Fletcher and was recognized
by Supreme Court of India in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case).This case
originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex
at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal gas leak and created a lot of
panic in Delhi. Bhagwati CJ. was a pioneer in this important development, and he didn’t

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 13

follow the rule laid in Rylands v. Fletcher , on an important ground that the principles
established in the said case are not in keeping with the present day jurisprudential
thinking.Justice Bhagwati also stated that the rule of strict liability was evolved in 19th
century, the time when nature industrial developments was at primary stage, in today’s
modern industrial society where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary
to carry out development programme, thus this rule cannot be held relevant in present day
context. Also one cannot feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the context of
totally different social and economic structure. A clear distinction between Strict and
Absolute liability rule was laid down by SC in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, giving four
basic points for it: First, only those enterprises will be liable which are betrothed in hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity, this implies that other industries not falling in the ambit
stated above, will be covered under Strict liability rule. Second, the escape of a dangerous
thing from one’s land is not necessary, which means that the rule will be applicable to those
injured within the premise and person outside the premise. Third, rule doesn’t have an
exception, which is provided in rule of Strict Liability. Four, the quantum of damages
depends on the magnitude and financial capability of the enterprise. SC very aptly also
contended that ,The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the
highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise
must be absolutely liable to compensate for such damage and it should be no answer to the
enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm transpired without any
negligence on its part.

NECESSITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IN INDIA

Our country being a pioneer in industrial development and demographs of such development
soaring high each day, also with complexity in both life and geography, it is necessary to
have a stricter and more absolute principle of liability with respect to no- fault liability.
Moreover the principle so established in Rylands v. Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used
in the modern world, as the very principle was evolved in 19th century, and in the period
when the industrial revolution has just begun, this two century old principle of tortuous
liability cannot be taken as it is in the modern world without modifications. The present
condition of our country when it is on the verge of being one of the most globalised countries

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 14

of the world, inclusion of multinational corporations (MNCs) in the jurisdiction of our

country raises both points of appreciation and concern. The technological complexity and the
nature of industrial development, being increasing at a high rate and also industrial sector
being a major contributor to our GDP, the protection of the very human rights and lives of
people should be taken into consideration. Thus the rule of strict liability cannot be still
considered as the only redressal principle. Also pointed out by Bhagwati J. in M. C. Mehta v.
Union of India, paragraph 31 of the case that “This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time
when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any
guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the
needs of the present day economy and social structure. We need not feel inhibited by this rule
which was evolved in this context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in
order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic
developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved
in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. We
have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with
the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our
judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the
matter of that in any other foreign country”. Also the fact that the industrial development
cannot be done without the existence of hazardous and inherently dangerous industries, it is
very much necessary to put responsibility on the shoulders of such industries for the
protection of the people from any type of accidents etc. Justice Bhagwati also contended that
“Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on
condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. This
principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential
hazards” also observing. Thus from the above mentioned points it is a key necessity for such
a principle to be evolved as it will not only shape our jurisprudence but also will help us to
not carry the absolute principle of Strict liability in modern society19 . Thus the necessity
factor as discussed in the above section clearly helps us to understand as to the principle of
absolute liability is not only required to protect the basic human rights of the people, but also
to develop tort law in India and to expand our own countries jurisprudence.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 15

CONCLUSION

Justice P.N.Bhagwati full name Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati was one of the eminent
jurist of India. He is also known as the Father of PIL in India. Bhagwati was appointed Chancellor
of Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning on May 6, 2011. The same year, he was elected
a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001.

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati (born December 21, 1921) was the 17th Chief Justice of
India, serving from 12 July 1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. he introduced the
concepts of Public Interest Litigation and Absolute liability in India, and for this reason is
held along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a pioneer of judicial activism in the country.

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 16

REFERENCES

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._N._Bhagwati
 http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/judges/bio/pnbhagwati.htm
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/laid.htm
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/PUBLIC-INTEREST-LITIGATION-
3111.asp#.VSOsJvmUflQ
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/50885259/Principle-of-Absolute-Lilability#scribd

ENGLISH HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY