Introduction 

The Taj Mahal, the eternal symbol of love in India, has withstood the
brutal force of the elements for centuries. But this magnificent monument
was almost destroyed by pollution. That is, until a lawyer by the name of
M.C. Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions from the
Hon’ble Court to direct authorities to take steps to stop pollution. 

Another example of a PIL is the Oleum Gas Leak Case that established the
concept of “absolute liability” in Indian law. 

A Public Interest Litigation also known as PIL is a form of litigation that is

filed to safeguard or enforce public interest. Public Interest is the interest
belonging to a particular class of the community affects their legal rights
or liabilities. It may include pecuniary interest. 

The expression Public Interest means as an act beneficial to the general public.
It means an action necessarily taken for public purpose.

Public Interest Litigation is concerned with providing access to justice to all

sections of the society. Public Interest Litigation in India has been a part of the
constitutional scheme;

One of the overarching aims of law and legal systems has been to achieve
justice in the society and public interest litigation (PIL) has proved to be a
useful tool in achieving this objective;

What is a PIL? 
PIL has not been defined in any Indian statute. However, Courts have
interpreted and defined PIL. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in
the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary, held that lexically, the
expression ‘PIL’  means a legal action started in a court of law for the
enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular
class of the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects
their legal rights or liabilities. 

PILs are considered to be the most effective as well as the most

commonly used judicial tool to safeguard the environment due to their
many advantages including but not limited to speedy results, nominal
court fees, relaxed procedural rules and the wide variety of investigative
techniques available to courts like special committees.  There is no
confusion as to the general meaning of PIL – that it is litigation in the interest
of the public. Yet the more one attempts to be specific about the scope of PIL,
the less satisfactory becomes this general description. Terms like litigation’,
‘public1 or ‘interest’ have different meanings and scope in different situations.
Further complications arise when the term ‘public interest’ is the issue. Since
the term is culture specific, no single definition can satisfy everyone. Hence
the scope of the term depends, to a great extent, on the point of view chosen.

In practice, there has been a compromise of different viewpoints about the

scope of PH. The activists and jurists accept the general meaning of PIL and
leave the details to the discretion of the individual judge. Thus the scope of
PIL in any particular jurisdiction depends more on practical experiences as
demonstrated by judicial pronouncements than on any particular theoretical
framework.

Yet there are a few general components that help us to determine whether a
particular issue is of public interest and whether a particular litigation is PIL.
These general components of the meaning and scope of PIL have been
discussed in the present chapter, along with a number of associated terms
that one can not avoid while attempting to understand PIL.

MEANING OF THE TERM ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’

While the concept of PEL was just taking shape, Bhagwati J., one of the
pioneers of PIL in India, observed in People’s Union of Democratic Rights v.
Union of India:

Public interest litigation is essentially a co-operative effort on the part of the

petitioner, the State or public authority and the Court to secure observance of
the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the
vulnerable section of the community and to reach social justice to them.

PIL started to evolve and develop with great speed and the judges extensively
applied the concept to different areas. This wider scope of PIL was ensured by
defining it from a very broad angle, by describing PIL simply as litigation in the
interest of the public. Kirpal J. said in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v.
Ministry of Home Affairs:

As I understand the phrase “Public Interest Litigation”, it means nothing more

than what it states namely it is a litigation in the interest of the public. Public
interest litigation is not that type of litigation which is meant to satisfy the
curiosity of the people, but it is a litigation which is instituted with a desire that
the court would be able to give effective relief to the whole or a section of the
society.
Like the Indians, Pakistani judges and writers have generally considered PIL
as a purpose-oriented idea. PIL is described as a task of the eradication of
social evils through the medium of law as is enjoined by the Constitution.
Hussain says:

Public interest litigation means what it says namely litigation in the interest of 
the public. … it must be emphasised that the raison d’etre of public interest I
litigation is to break through the existing legal, technical and procedural
constraints and provide justice, particularly social justice to a particular
individual, class or community who on account of any personal deficiency or
economic or social deprivation or state oppression are prevented from
bringing a claim before the Court of law.

PIL may be distinguished from ordinary litigation in the following way, First,
PIL is for the benefit of the people as a whole or a segment of the society. It
aims to enhance social and collective justice and there must be a public cause
involved as opposed to a private cause. This includes several situations:

a.       Where the matter in question affects the entire public or the entire
community, e.g. illegal appointment of an unfit person as a government
servant;

b.       Where the issue involves a vulnerable segment of the society, e.g.
eviction of slum-dwellers without any alternative arrangement;

c.        Where the matter affects one or more individuals but the nature of the
act is so gross or serious that it shocks the conscience of the whole
community, e.g. rape of a minor girl in police custody.

Second, in the situations mentioned above, any individual or organisation may

approach the court. In other words, PIL involves liberalisation of the rules of
standing.

This includes cases initiated suo motu; because the judge himself is a

concerned citizen in such a case.

Third, the court adopts a non-adversarial approach as opposed to an

adversarial system of litigation. This includes procedural aspects as well as
the aspects of granting relief. As a result, the court may treat letters as writ
petitions, appoint commissioners, award compensation or supervise and
monitor the enforcement of its orders.

In short, PIL may be described as a type of litigation where the interest of the
public is given priority over all other interests with an aim to ensure social and
collective justice, the court being ready to disregard the constraints of the
adversary model of litigation. Thus when conscious citizens or organisations,
with bonafide intentions, approach the court for the interest of the public in
general or a disadvantaged or under-privileged segment of the society and not
for any private, vested, special or group interest, it is termed as ‘public interest
litigation1. An injury to the public interest will be apparent only when some
constitutional or legal rights, privileges or benefits are affected or where a
constitutional or legal duty or obligation has not be performed. PIL becomes a
necessity when protection of law is unavailable to the public or a segment of it
due to ignorance, poverty, fear or lack of organised endeavor.

WHAT IS ‘PUBLIC INTEREST’

The terms ‘public1 and ‘interest’ are by no means easy to define. When they
combine to form the term ‘public interest’ – we have a fertile ground for
confusions and competing ideas.

The word ‘public’ literally means pertaining to the people of a country or

locality. In other words, “the community as an aggregate, but not in its
organised capacity, hence  the members of the community”.  The term can be
used for either all members of the community or groups of members or any
section or class of that community. It is a term of uncertain import and must be
limited in every case by the context in which it is used. The term ‘interest’ is a
relation of being objectively concerned in something by having a right or title
to, a claim upon or a share in that thing. It includes varying aggregates of
rights, privileges, powers and immunities. Here also, the word has different
implications in different contexts.

When the words ‘public’ and ‘interest’ combine to form the term ‘public
interest’, it becomes difficult to define due to a number of factors. The phrase
is used in different disciplines including political science, economics and law
with different connotations and from different perspectives. It again depends
on the user and one’s purpose; from democrats to autocrats everybody uses
it. Finally, it also varies from one jurisdiction to another. This confusion has led
writers to say that ‘no general agreement exists about whether the term has
any meaning at all and that the concept ‘makes no operational sense

Generally, public interest means a commonality of interest, a single interest

that a certain group of people or citizens are presumed to share. Barry and
Rees actually extend this still further: The concept of public interest … is a
device which permits us to treat the human interests of all men as a function
of human interests within a given political region. It has considerable value as
a weapon for criticizing selfish private interests or class interests, and its
advantages in a highly individualistic and often savagely competitive society
are obvious.

Thus, while a special interest furthers the ends of some part of the public,
public interest ultimately serves the ends of the whole public. 18 Even in the
case of a conflict among different private or special interests, the public
interest lies in the best and most just solution of the conflict which ensures that
the public as a whole gain a better environment after the conflict is resolved.
Thus, for example, it is a matter of public interest to protect minority rights
because, although a major portion of the public might lose something, the
community as a whole would gain by the progress made in terms of human
and fundamental rights.

As to how this commonality of interest might be determined, there is no

agreement. It is often supposed that public interest suggests a consensus
among the ‘preponderance’ of the people or the dominant portion of the
public. Public interest has also been seen as the sum total of all interests in
the community balanced for the common good. Some idealists believe that
public interest consists of the course of action that is best for society as a
whole according to some absolute standard of values regardless of whether
any citizens actually desire them. practical purposes, however, the courts
have attempted to describe ‘public interest1 with more certainty. Thus a
principle emerged in early English law that a matter of ‘public interest is one in
which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by
which their legal rights 01 liabilities are affected. This principle of common law
appears to have been generally followed in the sub-continent including
Bangladesh. In a Bangladeshi case, while borrowing from the English
jurisdiction, Anwamlj Hoque Chowdhury J. held:

The expression public interest is nowhere defined in the Passport Order. It

hast however received judicial interpretation years ago from the courts of
English Jurisdiction. In South Hetton Coal Company case, reported in 1894 1
QB at 133 Lord Esher MR while dealing with the question of fair comment in
mastiff  of public interest observed that when so many people of a particular
locality! affected by failure of sanitation, a fair comment is in public interest.
Public interest [sicl thus, connotes matter of interest in which a class of
community would have pecuniary interest or any other interest by which legal
right or liabilities are effected.

This description depicts the traditional and well established attitude ta by the
courts both in England and in the sub-continent.

The term ‘public interest’, has some other traditional meanings as well. J often
equated   with   national   interest,   national   security   or   even justifiability. It
has also been acknowledged that “the expression interest the general  public 
embraces public security, public   order  and public morality”

THE CONCEPT OF PIL: THEORETICAL APPROACHES

‘Whether PIL is essentially a revolution or a reformation depends on the

perspective of the observer rather than on any theoretical paradigm. Yet,
being radical development, PIL requires to be justified by its proponents,
explained by the activists and understood by the lawyers. As a result, various
attempts have been made to theories the concept of PIL.

However, it must be stressed that a single precise ‘theory’ of PIL, accepted by

everyone, is neither available nor possible. Instead of a ‘theory of PEL’, the
following discussion attempts to follow the patterns of some of the theoretical
approaches taken by the proponents of PEL. It needs to be mentioned that
our discussion is in no way exhaustive.

‘LITIGATION’ AND FORUM OF PIL

One important aspect of PIL is that it entails ‘litigation’ – the process of settling
legal disputes in a court of law under appropriate procedures. From a wider
viewpoint, it includes cases not only in law courts but also at the instance of
quasi-judicial or administrative authority. Yet, PIL being a specific type of
litigation and nothing more it excludes legislative activities and other extra-
legal means of promoting public interest, e.g. lobbying, negotiation, etc.

As it is a type of litigation, PIL has all the constraints and limitations of the
litigation process. However, to promote public interest, the constraints of the
litigation process have been liberally construed where PIL is involved.

In general, PIL indicates a petition in public interest in the nature of writ under
Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Development of PIL
inBangladesh so far has revolved around this constitutional jurisdiction. But
PIL is not confined only within the constitutional jurisdiction. There is scope for
PIL in Civil and Criminal courts as well as in special courts and tribunals
provided that such litigation fulfills the criterion of PIL. Thus for example, Order
1 rule 8 relating to representative suits or section 91 regarding public nuisance
of the Civil Procedure Code are relevant.However, the present book

Historical Context
• After gaining independence from the British rule on August 15, 1947, the
people of India adopted a Constitution in November 1949 with the hope to
establish a ‘‘sovereign socialist secular democratic republic’’;
• Among others, the Constitution aims to secure to all its citizens justice
(social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship) and equality (of status and of opportunity);

• The main tools employed to achieve such social change were the provisions
on fundamental rights and the directive principles of state policy,which Austin
described as the ‘‘conscience of the Constitution’’

• The founding fathers wanted to ensure that FRs does not remain mere
promise, hence they made various provisions in the Constitution to establish
an independent an strong judiciary;

• The need for PIL was more pressing in a country like India where a great
majority of people were either ignorant of their rights or were too poor to
approach the court;

• Realising this need, the Court held that any member of public acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest has a right to approach the court for
redressal of a legal wrong, especially when the actual plaintiff suffers from
some disability or the violation of collective diffused rights is at stake;

• The Supreme Court in Gupta v Union of India held: ‘‘Where a legal wrong or a
legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason
of violation of any constitutional or legal right ...and such person or
determinate class of persons is by reasons of poverty, helplessness, or
disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to
approach the Court for any relief, any member of the public can maintain an
application for an appropriate direction, order or writ.’’

• The seeds of the concept of Public Interest Litigation were sown in India in
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai (without using the term – Public Interest
Litigation) where the Supreme Court observed that “Our adjectival branch of
jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with sophisticated litigants but the poor,
the urban lay and the weaker societal segments for whom law will be an added
torture if technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting pleadings and
setting out the cause title create secret weapon to non-suit a part.”

• Judiciary realized that technical difficulties in drafting legal pleadings results

in denial of access to justice to a large section of the society because of their
extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy from time
immemorial;

• There was an urgent need to provide access to justice to the poor, deprived,
vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society;

• Hence, Judiciary while exercising its power of judicial review initiated,

encouraged and promoted Public Interest Litigation in India;

Who can file a PIL? 

Any individual or organisation can file a PIL either in his/her/their own
standing i.e. to protect or enforce a right owed to him/her/them by the
government or on behalf of a section of society who is disadvantaged or
oppressed and is not able to enforce their own rights.  

The concept of “Locus Standi” has been relaxed in the case of PILs so as
to enable the Hon’ble Court to look into grievances that are filed on behalf
of those who are poor, illiterate, deprived or disabled and are unable to
approach the courts themselves.  

However, only a person acting in good faith and who has sufficient
interest in the proceeding will have the locus standi to file a PIL. A person
who approaches the Hon’ble Court for personal gain, private profit,
political or any oblique consideration will not be entertained.  

Where can a PIL be filed? 

PILs are extensions of Writ Jurisdiction. Therefore, PILs may be filed
either before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution or any High Court under Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution. 

However, even a simple letter or a postcard addressed to the Chief Justice

of India or the Chief Justice of a High Court may suffice. The court may
then choose to take cognizance of the letter and convert it into a PIL as in
the case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh [(AIR 1989 SC 594), where the Hon’ble Court converted a
letter raising the issue of unauthorised and illegal mining in Mussoorie Hills
into a writ petition under Public Interest Litigation. 

Corrections measure by Supreme Court

• There is a need to prevent misuse of PIL;

• The judiciary has responded to the dark side of PIL in two ways.

• First, the Indian Supreme Court as well as High Courts have tried to send
strong messages on a case-to-case basis whenever they noticed that the
process of PIL was misused. In some cases, the courts have gone to the extent
of imposing a fine on plaintiffs who abused the judicial process;

• Second, the Supreme Court has taken was to compile a set of ‘‘Guidelines to
be Followed for Entertaining Letters/Petitions Received by it as PIL’’.

Laws governing PIL in India 

Over the years, the courts in India have formulated various principles with
respect to PILs:   

 Relaxed rule of locus standi- PILs can be filed by any person for

the welfare of others who are disadvantaged and are thus unable to
approach the courts themselves. Thus, the general rule of locus
standi has been relaxed in cases of PILs to protect and safeguard
the interests and rights of these disadvantaged people.  
 Relaxed procedural rules- Courts have treated even a letter or a
telegram as a PIL as in the case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement
Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.  Even the law
regarding pleadings has been relaxed by the courts in cases of
PILs.     
 Intervention by the courts– Courts has also highlighted the fact
that Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and the
International Conventions on Human Rights provide for a fair and
reasonable trial. Thus, Courts must intervene when injustice is done
to many.  
 Question of maintainability- The Government may not be allowed
to raise questions as to the maintainability of the PIL if the court is
prime facie satisfied that there is a variation of any constitutional
rights of a disadvantaged category of people.  
 Principle of Res Judicata- The principle of res judicata or any
principles analogous to it would depend on the circumstances and
facts of the case and the nature of the PIL.  
 Appointment of a Commission- In special circumstances, a
court may appoint a Commission or other bodies to investigate.
 In the event that the Commission takes over a public institution,
the Court may direct management of it. 
 PILs regarding constitutionality or validity of a statute or a
statutory rule– Ordinarily, the High Court should not entertain
such a petition by way of a PIL. 
 Complete Justice– Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the discretionary power to
pass a decree or order as may be necessary to do complete justice.
However, while high courts may pass orders to do complete justice,
they do not have powers akin to those granted to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court under Article 142.  
 Misuse of PILs– Courts are extremely cautious to ensure that PILs
are not misused as the misuse of PILs would defeat the very
purpose for which it was conceived i.e. to come to the rescue of the
poor and the downtrodden. The courts have, time and again,
reiterated this fact as in the case of Kushum Lata v. Union of India.
However, courts have held that even if the petitioner had
approached the court for his own private interest due to his personal
grievances, the court may treat it necessary to inquire into the
subject of the litigation and its state of affairs in furtherance of
public interest.  
 Formulation of various concepts–  In environmental law cases,
the courts have formulated and evolved several concepts including
the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle, the Public
Trust Doctrine and Sustainable Development. 

What are some essentials of drafting a

PIL? 
The following are some of the essential steps that should be followed when
drafting a PIL:
 Collection of information– The first step of drafting a PIL would
be to collect all relevant information pertaining to the issue. 
 Collation of documents– All documents regarding the case
including photographs if any, must be collated.   
 Court in which it is to be filed– The Petitioner must decide in
which he/she/it wants to file the PIL, whether before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court or the High Court of that State.   
 Form of the PIL– A PIL can be in the form of a Petition or even a
letter or postcard. In the event that the PIL is to be filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the letter/postcard must be
addressed to the Chief Justice of India. In the event that the PIL is
to be filed before a High Court, the letter/postcard must be
addressed to the Chief Justice of that particular High Court. 
 Public Litigation Guidelines– When drafting a PIL, one must look
at the Public Litigation Guidelines applicable for the particular court
before which one intends to file the PIL. The same are usually
available on the websites of the respective courts. 
 Details to clearly stated– The following details must be clearly
stated:
1. Petitioner’s name, postal address, email address, phone
number, occupation, annual income and PAN number. 
2. Proof of identity of the Petitioner must be annexed.
3. Facts of the case.  
4. Nature of the injury.  
5. Any personal interest that he/she/it may have.
6. Details of any litigation involving the petitioner which could
have a legal nexus with the issue involved in the PIL.  
7. The class of persons for whose benefit the PIL is being filed
and how they are incapable of accessing the courts
themselves.
8. In the event that any representations have been made to
any authorities regarding the issue, the details of the same.
9. Any person/body/institution that may be affected by the
PIL must be joined as a party.
10. The Petitioner must also state that he/she/they are able to
pay costs, if any, that may be imposed by the court.
 Appearance in court- The Petitioner may either appoint an
advocate or choose to appear in person. 
What is the procedure for filing a PIL? 
Details on the procedure of filing PILs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a
High Court are summarized in the table below. 

  Supreme Court  High Court 

Number of copies of the PIL

5  2 
to be filed 

Service of copy upon To be served only when the

To be served in
Respondent(s) / Opposite Hon’ble Court issues notice
advance 
Party(ies)  regarding the same. 

Rs.50/- per
Court Fees to be affixed on Rs.50/- per Respondent /
Respondent /
the Petition  Opposite Party 
Opposite Party 

A PIL can be filed in the same way as a writ petition. 

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) guidelines are available on the website of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It states inter alia that certain letter-
petitions that fall under certain categories alone will ordinarily be treated
as PILs including petitions pertaining to environmental pollution,
disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance
of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wildlife and other matters of
public importance. 

CASE LAWS
1. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Election Commission & Others WP
No.186/1994 (Nuisance during Election Campaign) 

The first ever-environmental litigation was filed in 1994 in the form of a Writ
Petition in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh by a
group of environmental lawyers called the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers
Association (BELA). It was filed against the four authorities of the Government
responsible for the enforcement of various civic rights, and accordingly, the
respondent was the State. The election of the four Municipal Corporations of
the country, held at the beginning of this year, evidenced gross violation of
some legal obligations and, consequently, interfered with the various rights of
the people. The unlawful activities created by the election campaign resulted
in encroaching on public properties, restricting and depriving the rights to life,
property, enjoyment of public resources, etc. of the city dwellers. The
footpaths and other public places were saturated with election camps;
incessant use of loudspeakers and other noisy instruments rendered life
miserable; the walls of the four major cities of the country where the elections
were being held were all covered with election slogans; unscheduled and
unregulated processions created serious traffic jams, and so on. Repeated
appeals by the Election Commission for showing respect to the laws of the
country were virtually ignored. All this anarchy prompted the institution of a
petition where the Hon’ble Court issued rule nisi upon the respondents asking
them to show cause as to why they should not be directed to comply with the
directive issued by the Election Commissioner touching upon the various acts
and laws and rules. The Court also considered the prayer of the petitioner to
restrain the Election Commissioner from holding the election till full
compliance with the respondents. The rule, however, was disposed of,
following assurance from the Attorney General that the Government would
take all necessary steps to implement all the directives of the Election
Commission.

2. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No.891/1994

(Industrial Pollution Case) 

In 1994 BELA filed this Writ Petition seeking relief against indiscriminate
pollution of air, water, soil and the environment by 903 industries of 14 sectors
identified as polluters by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural
Development and Cooperatives (LGRDC) vide Gazette notification dated 7
August 1986. The 14 sectors include Tanneries, Paper and Pulp, Sugar Mills,
Distilleries, Iron and Steel, Fertilizer, Insecticide and Pesticide Industries,
Chemical Industries, Cement, Pharmaceuticals, Textile, Rubber and Plastic,
Tyre and Tube and Jute.

The Notification of 7th August 1986 directed the Department of Environment

(DoE), the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Ministry of
Industries to ensure within three years that appropriate pollution control
measures were undertaken by those industries. The Notification also required
the said authorities to ensure that no new industry could be set up without
pollution fighting devices. But unfortunately, even after the lapse of eight years
when no measure was taken the above Petition was filed.
After seven years since the date of filling of the petition on the 15 July of 2001,
the court has directed the Directed General, Department of Environment to
implement the decision taken with regard to mitigation of pollution by 903
industries identified as polluters within the time frame of six months from the
date of the judgment.

The Petitioner pleaded that the ecological system of the country more
particularly the air and water including the major rivers (Buriganga, Surma,
Karnaphuli and so on) are being severely affected by the identified 903
industries and that no affirmative action has been taken in furtherance of the
decisions of the Gazette dated 7th August, 1986. Rather the number of
polluting industries has multiplied as the recent list prepared by the DoE
shows that the number of polluting industries have risen up to 1176. The Court
earlier issued Rule Nisi to the Respondents including the LGRDC, Ministry of
Environment and Forest, Ministry of Industries and Department of
Environment to show cause as to why they should be directed to implement
the decisions of the Government dated 5 June, 1986 which was published in
the official Gazette. After hearing the Petitioner, the Rule has been made
absolute today and the DG, DoE has been directed to “Report to this Court
after six months by furnishing concerned affidavit showing that compliance of
this Order of this Court”. To ensure implementation of the Court directions, the
Hon’ble High Court further held that “It will be imperative on the part of the
Director General to take penal action against such department for persons
who are responsible for not implementing the letter of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1995.”

3.  Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No. 1783/1994

(Doctor’s Strike Case)

This Writ Petition was filed on 3.10.94 by Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque in the
Vacation Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court praying
intervention of the Hon’ble Court in restoring the public medical services and
care all over the country disrupted by the continuous strike of BCS (Health)
Cadre doctors. The petition was filed against the following respondents: (1)
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare, (2) the Director General of Health Services, (3) the Bangladesh
Medical and Dental Council and (4) the Bangladesh Medical Association.

In this writ petition the petitioner challenged the continuance of strike by the
doctors of all the GovernmentMedicalHospitals, Health Complexes and
Centres since September 21, 1994. It was submitted that due to long strike by
the Government Doctors BCS (Health Cadre) in the Government Medical
Hospitals, Health Complexes and Centres the entire system for getting
treatment by the people has become paralysed and the sufferings of the
people knew no bounds. News of sufferings of the people was being
published in the several daily Newspapers everyday for the indefinite strike by
the Government doctors BCS (Health Cadre) through out the country.

Since it was a case of great public importance and since it involves the
interest of the nation as whole, Court issued Rule and grant mandatory
injunction calling upon the respondents to show cause why their failure to
perform their statutory and Constitutional duties to ensure health services and
medical care to the general public, arising out of the abstention from duties by
the striking doctors, since 21 September, 1994 should not be declared illegal
and why they should not be directed to restore, provide and ensure the public
medical services immediately through out the country in all Government
Medical Hospitals, Complexes and Centres and why their call for an indefinite
strike began on 21 September, 1994 resulting thereby wilful absence of the
doctors of BCS (Health Cadre) as members of the Association from their
statutory and public duties causing threat to life and body should not be
declared to have been made against public interest, without any lawful
authority and is of no legal effect.

Pending hearing of the Rule, the Respondents were directed by way of

mandatory injunction to call off the strike of the doctors BCS (Health Cadre) of
all the Government Medical Hospitals, Complexes and Centres immediately
with effect within 24 hours from the date of service of notice and to join their
offices respectively.

4.   Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh & Others WP No.300/1995

(Vehicular Pollution Case)

This writ petition was filed by BELA seeking appropriate direction upon the
Respondents to perform their statutory public duties and functions for
controlling environmental pollution created by motor vehicles and to take
effective measures to ensure the most appropriate mitigative measures,
devices and methods to prevent further aggravation and danger to life and
public health. The petition was filed against 13 Respondents, namely, (1) The
Secretary, Ministry of Communications; (2) The Chairman, Bangladesh Road
Transport Authority; (3) The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; (4) The
Commissioner, Dhaka Metropolitan Police; (5) The Secretary, Ministry of
Environment and Forest; (6) The Director General, Department of
Environment; (7) The Dhaka City Corporation; (8) The Secretary, Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, (9) The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, (10) The
Secretary, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, (11) Chairman,
Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation, (12) The Secretary, Ministry of Industries,
and (13) The Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution.

In his submission the petitioner stated that the air pollution from faulty motor
vehicles has been universally identified as a major threat to human body and
life. Such pollution in DhakaCity is acute and incompatible with the conditions
required for the growth of human life and ecology. The lives of the City
dwellers and its environment are endangered and the failures of the
respondents in the performance of their statutory and public duties are
depriving people of their fundamental rights disturbing the public peace
creating public annoyance. He submitted that the lead-laced gas emitted
because of the use of leaded petroleum were severely affecting the lungs,
liver, brain and the nervous system, resulting to high blood pressure, IQ and
memory-retention damage among children and damage to foetuses leading to
deformed babies. The high sulphur content in the petroleum, and hence in the
smoke, causes severe damage to the ecology.

The main thrust of Dr. Farooque’s submission was that although the right to a
safe and healthy environment has not been directly specified in the
Constitution as a fundamental right, such a right is inherent and integrated in
the “right to life” as enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution. Hence, the right
to a sound environment was also a fundamental right under Article 32 being
supported by Article 31 that ensures that no action detrimental to life, body,
property could be taken. Therefore, the failures of the Respondents in their
duties denied the people of their basic fundamental right.

Upon hearing the Petition, the Court issued a rule nisi upon the Respondent to
show cause as to why they should not be directed to take all adequate and
effective measures to check pollution caused due to the emissions of
hazardous smokes from the motor vehicles and the use of audible signaling
devices giving unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise.

The matter was pending for a long time and after a lapse of 7 years, on the
27th March of 2002 the High Court has directed the government to phase out
all two stroke vehicles from city street by December 2002.

The court also directed that all petrol and diesel-fuelled government vehicles
have to be converted into Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered within six
months and pneumatic horns being discarded within 30 days.

It asked the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) to check fitness of

vehicles, using computerized system with immediate effect. The court also
asked the government to ensure international standard of fuel by reducing or
eliminating toxic elements.

The High Court further directed the government to set up adequate number of
CNG filling stations within six months and to ensure that all cars imported
since July 2001 be fitted with catalytic converter.

The government was also asked to strictly comply with its decision to ban two
stroke vehicles of over nine years old.
BELA also prayed for ensuring that the exemption of motor cycles from the
requirement of certificate of fitness under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983
be withdrawn immediately which was also directed by the Court.

On behalf of the government BRTA, Dhaka Metropolitan Police, Environment

Ministry, Department of Environment, Commerce Ministry and Ministry of
energy and mineral resources submitted testimony (affidavit) in opposition
before court.

The matter is pending for further monitoring.

Positive side of PIL

• Through PIL judiciary has become more closer to the disadvantaged people
has argued that PIL brings social revolution through constitutional means;

• PIL has expanded the jurisprudence of fundamental rights and human rights
in India; for instance, Directive principles are non justifiable rights, the courts
imported some of its principles into Fundamental rights, hence made many
socio-economic rights important. Thus leading to the legal recognition of these
rights as important as education, health, livelihood, environment, speedy trial
and privacy;

• Through PIL, judiciary brought many legislative reforms for instance, Vishaka
case which brought forth the guidelines on sexual harassment at work place

Negative side of PIL

• PIL has negative aspects also. Many new problems arise such as an
unanticipated increase in the workload of the superior courts, lack of judicial
infrastructure to determine factual matters, gap between the promise and
reality, abuse of process, friction and confrontation with fellow organs of the
government, and dangers inherent in judicial populism (Desai and Muralidhar,
2000).

• PIL has been criticised for being misused for personal/private interest
• Desai and Muralidhar (2000), ‘PIL is being misused by people agitating for
private grievances in the grab of public interest and seeking publicly rather
than espousing public causes.”

• Indian judiciary is facing crisis of human resources and it becomes a difficult

task for courts to handle all cases, in such situation frivolous PIL should be
stopped;

Courts are taking long time in disposing of even PIL cases;

• PIL creates the problem of judicial populism , which means that judges
sometimes think themselves as crusaders and want to become people’s judges

• In India PIL cases often turn into symbolic justice. For instance, Vishaka
judgment brought guidelines but little progress has been made in combating
sexual harassment of women;

• Non seriousness of redressal of PIL. “The overuse of PIL for every conceivable
public interest might dilute the original commitment to use this remedy only
for enforcing human rights of the victimised and the disadvantaged groups”

Conclusion 
A PIL is an important judicial tool especially for the protection
of the rights of those who are unable to approach the courts
themselves. They are one of the most commonly used forms of
litigation, especially in environmental cases. The courts have
tried to make rules regarding PILs simpler so as to not
discourage the filing of PILs in public interest and on behalf of
the poor, disable or deprived classes of persons. However,
there are several instances in which people have tried to
further their own private interests under the guise of PILs.
Thus, courts must continue to remain extremely cautious to
ensure that PILs are not misused.