Public interest litigation Notes – I

By Yamini Atreya

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 the court's jurisdiction, that the person who is the
victim of the violation of his or her right 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 encroached upon. The court
can itself take cognisance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the
petition of any public-spirited individual.

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. For e.g.

- Violation of basic human rights of the poor

- Content or conduct of government policy

- Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty.

- Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights

In Black's law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), Public Interest is defined as follows:

Public Interest. -

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...

Examples of PIL (Public Interest Litigation)

The Bombay High Court on 31 August, 2006 directed the broadcasters to give an undertaking
that they will abide by the Cable Television Network Act 1995 as well as the court's orders
by tomorrow, in view of larger public interest.

A division bench comprising Justices R M Lodha and S A Bobde were hearing a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Professor Pratibha Nathani of St Xavier's College alleging
that films without certification by the Censor Board for Film Certification (CBFC) allowing
'free public exhibition', were being shown on cable channels, which have a bad impact on
children. Hence, such films should not be shown and action be taken against those still
running such content on their channels.

The court on 23 August had allowed the cable operators and channels to screen only 'U' and
'U/A' certified films.

However, before that order, the police had taken action against the Multi-system operators
and seized their decoders due to which they could not telecast certain channels. Assistant
Commissioner of Police Sanjay Apranti told the court that they did not have a problem if the
channels provided the cable operators with new decoders.

Also, Zee Television and Star Television networks applied for the declaration in writing that
they would abide by the said Act and court orders.

The court also directed seven channels -- Star Movies, Star One, Star Gold, HBO, ZEE
Movies, AXN and Sony Max -- to furnish a list of all the films that they were to screen to the
police.

Public Interest Litigation - What is?

It was vehemently contended that this would not be regarded as public interest litigation and,
the petitioners had no locus standi to file the present petitions. We are unable to agree to this
submission. Environment, more than any thing else, is and should be a concern for all. It is
one thing which is available free for all the inhabitants of an area and it is essential that this
environment is maintained for the purposes of ensuring a healthy life. This issue is no longer
res integra. The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar,*

observed that:

…Right to live is a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution and it includes the
right of enjoyment of pollution - free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything
endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has a right to have a
recourse to Article 32 of constitution of India for removing the pollution of water or air which
may be detrimental to quality of life...

Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to
play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or
decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one
has to move the Supreme Court or the High Courts directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of
these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however,
makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and
underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of
India, pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of
courts to the common man.

Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form
and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in
those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals,
usually, addressing their own grievances/problems.

Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or
the aggrieved party. Even this was greatly limited by the resources available with those
individuals. There was very little organized efforts or attempts to take up wider issues that
affected classes of consumers or the general public at large. However, all these scenario
changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest
litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly
formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in
their work a broad public interest perspective.
Legal History-

The Indian PIL is the improved version of PIL of U.S.A. According to Ford Foundation of
U.S.A., Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide
legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide
such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such
groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic
minorities and others. The emergency period (1975-1977) witnessed colonial nature of the
Indian legal system. During emergency state repression and governmental lawlessness was
widespread. Thousands of innocent people including political opponents were sent to jails
and there was complete deprivation of civil and political rights. The post emergency period
provided an occasion for the judges of the Supreme Court to openly disregard the
impediments of Anglo-Saxon procedure in providing access to justice to the poor.

Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL can be broadly defined as litigation in the
interest of that nebulous entity: the public in general. Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party
could personally knock the doors of justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other
person who was not personally affected could not knock the doors of justice as a proxy for
the victim or the aggrieved party. In other words, only the affected parties had the locus
standi (standing required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non affected
persons had no locus standi to do so. And as a result, there was hardly any link between the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Indian Union and the laws made by the legislature on
the one hand and the vast majority of illiterate citizens on the other. The traditional view in
regard to locus standi in Writ jurisdiction has been that only such persons who: a) Has
suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected interest; or
b) Is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or legally protected
interest. Thus before a person acquired locus standi he had to have a personal or individual
right which was violated or threatened to be violated. He should have been a person
aggrieved in the sense that he had suffered or was likely to suffer from prejudice, pecuniary
or otherwise.

However, all these scenario gradually changed when the post emergency Supreme Court
tackled the problem of access to justice by people through radical changes and alterations
made in the requirements of locus standi and of party aggrieved. The splendid efforts of
Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer were instrumental of this juristic
revolution of eighties to convert the Apex Court of India into a Supreme Court for all Indians.
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N. Bhagwati recognised the possibility of providing access
to justice to the poor and the exploited people by relaxing the rules of standing. In the post-
emergency period when the political situations had changed, investigative journalism also
began to expose gory scenes of governmental lawlessness, repression, custodial violence,
drawing attention of lawyers, judges, and social activists. PIL emerged as a result of an
informal nexus of pro-active judges, media persons and social activists. This trend shows
starke difference between the traditional justice delivery system and the modern informal
justice system where the judiciary is performing administrative judicial role. PIL is necessary
rejection of laissez faire notions of traditional jurisprudence.

The first reported case of PIL in 1979 focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and
under trial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the PIL was filed by an
advocate on the basis of the news item published in the Indian Express, highlighting the
plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in Bihar. These
proceeding led to the release of more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners. Right to speedy justice
emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set
pattern was adopted in subsequent cases.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P.
Gupta v. 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 or the
Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation of a 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
executed in 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 public
are at stake.

In 1981 the case of Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, exposed the brutalities of the Police. News
paper report revealed that about 33 suspected criminals were blinded by the police in Bihar
by putting the acid into their eyes. Through interim orders Supreme Court directed the State
government to bring the blinded men to Delhi for medical treatment. It also ordered speedy
prosecution of the guilty policemen. The court also read right to free legal aid as a
fundamental right of every accused. Anil Yadav signalled the growth of social activism and
investigative litigation.

In Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam, the S. C. declared that the handcuffs and other
fetters shall not be forced upon a prisoner while lodged in jail or while in transport or transit
from one jail to another or to the court or back.

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.

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.
Steps necessary:

With the view to regulate the abuse of PIL the apex court itself has framed certain guidelines
(to govern the management and disposal of PILs.) The court must be careful to see that the
petitioner who approaches it is acting bona fide and not for personal gain, private profit or
political or other oblique considerations. The court should not allow its process to be abused
by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain political
objectives. Political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the
administrative process or political process may try to use the courts (through the means of
PILs) to further their closely vested aims and interests.

There may be cases where the PIL may affect the right of persons not before the court, and
therefore in shaping the relief the court must invariably take into account its impact on those
interests and the court must exercise greatest caution and adopt procedure ensuring sufficient
notice to all interests likely to be affected.

At present, the court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. But, it is not
every letter which may be treated as a writ petition by the court. The court would be justified
in treating the letter as a writ petition only in the following cases-

(i) It is only where the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person or

(ii) a public spirited individual or

(iii) a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or the legal rights of a person
in custody or of a class or group of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach the court for redress.

Even though it is very much essential to curb the misuse and abuse of PIL, any move by the
government to regulate the PIL results in widespread protests from those who are not aware
of its abuse and equate any form of regulation with erosion of their fundamental rights. Under
these circumstances the Supreme Court of India is required to step in by incorporating safe
guards provided by the civil procedure code in matters of stay orders /injunctions in the arena
of PIL.

In the landmark case of Raunaq International Limited v/s IVR Construction Ltd , Justice
Sujata V Manohar rightly enunciated that - when a stay order is obtained at the instance of a
private party or even at the instance of a body litigating in public interest, any interim order
which stops the project from proceeding further must provide for the reimbursement of costs
to the public in case ultimately the litigation started by such an individual or body fails. In
other words the public must be compensated both for the delay in the implementation of the
project and the cost escalation resulting from such delay.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a practice or a technique that focuses on the citizens of the
country. The main purpose of this school of jurisprudence – PIL is to protect the people of the
nation. Moreover, before heading into the intricacies of PIL, let’s understand what it actually is
and how it benefits us.

Meaning and Definition of Public Interest Litigation

In addition to what the above paragraph states, the public interest litigation gets initiation by a
group of people. These people belong to the country where the filing of the litigation happens.
Also, it is important to understand that PIL is a practice that allows the following to file for
litigation:

 an individual; or

 a group of people

Further, this individual person or a group of people can directly file interest litigation with the
Supreme Court. Apart from the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts, as well as the Judicial
Members, are capable of accepting litigation files.

Moreover, it is also important to note that the person or people who are filing the petition should
not possess any interest in the litigation. In other words, the petitioners should not file a litigation
petition keeping in mind a personal agenda. The Court accepts the litigation only when the plea
comes from a large public interest.

Importance of the Public Interest Litigation

Some of the critical importance and scope of the PIL are as follows:

 Public interest litigation provides a wider scope promoting the right to equality.

 Not only does it promote equality, but it also ensures right to life and personality.
Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees right to quality, life, and
personality.

 PIL is solely responsible for providing relief and remedies of the writ jurisdiction.

 The public interest litigation practice functions as an effective instrument for

changing society and ensuring welfare.

 Also, with the help of the public interest litigation, anyone can seek remedy on
behalf of the under-privileged class by introducing the public interest litigation.

Apart from the obvious importance of the PIL, here is why it is valued as highly as it is.

The PIL can do the following:

 Clarify the Indian societal law.

 Holding the public accountable by/and ensuring that they make appropriate
decisions, act fair and transparent within their legal powers.

 Aid in developing the law by providing the judges with the opportunity to
accurately interpret the legislation.

 Provide a voice to the voiceless and vulnerable by highlighting an important issue.

 Providing a platform to the vulnerable people to protect and practice their rights.

 Raise awareness of societal issues, encourage public debates and increase accurate
media coverage.

Q. Who can file for a Public Interest Litigation?

Any individual or a group of people can file for a PIL if they prove to the Courts that they are
not filing the petition for their personal agenda. Therefore, anybody who is a part of a society
and is facing an issue can file a PIL against the Government and not another individual or entity.

Q. Where can one file for the Public Interest Litigation?

You can file the PIL in the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution or with
the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Public Interest Litigation- Genesis and Evolution

Introduction
Litigation in India was originally confined to private individuals resorting to legal recourse to
defend one’s own private vested interests. This typically involved an action initiated by an
individual(s) against another/others concerning their own grievances and issues. Therefore, it
was the injured or the aggrieved party or individual who was entitled to initiate legal
proceedings within limited resources.    

Very limited efforts were made to undertake pertinent issues and problems concerning a
certain class of affected consumers or the general public at large. The judiciary being the
saviour and guardian of human rights of the citizens plays a crucial role in the entire scheme
of matters. It has been conferred with the power to review legislative and administrative
actions or decisions and ensure that there is no derogation of constitutional rights. 

The violation of one’s fundamental rights may be enforced by invoking the Writ Jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court or the High Courts. However, the time consuming and lengthy
procedural processes that are inherent to litigation make access to justice a distant reality for
the marginalized and underprivileged who are crippled by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance,
which further adds to their woes. 

Therefore, it was in this backdrop that in the ’80s the Supreme Court welcomed the concept
of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that threw open the corridors of justice dispensing justice
to the common and downtrodden. Thus, the Supreme Court gave an opportunity to the
common individuals of the country, including social action groups, social activists to
approach and access the law, which took into account the broader interest of the public. 

Meaning and Scope of Public Interest Litigation

The concept of public interest law was widely adopted in the USA and was used extensively
during and after the social turmoil of the 1960s. The concept of public interest law was
demonstrated and applied by Louis Brandeis, who in his legal practice actively advocated for
the interests of the general public. 1 India incorporates an improvised version of the public
interest law which developed in the U.S. 
‘Locus standi’ which means that one should have the legal capacity to challenge an act or
decision is the fundamental basis on which the traditional legal system to approach the court
operates. Both under the adversarial and inquisitorial legal system, in order to seek redressal
by approaching the court of law, one must have a grievance of a legal nature or there must be
a violation of rights against he who is approaching the court. Therefore, ‘locus standi’ which
confers a legal right to an aggrieved party to approach the court is an essential requirement
for any legal process. 
However, there is a fundamental difference between the traditional method of adjudication
and Public Interest Litigation (PIL). In the former, a direct ‘locus standi’ of the party
approaching the court is mandatory whereas, under a PIL the genuine interest of the
aggrieved or the interest of the public at large is sufficient. 

Moreover, in the traditional adjudication system, the hierarchy of courts in India is strictly
complied with and one must approach the lowest Court first, having jurisdiction to deal with
the matter and as per the prevailing law. However, under a PIL the aggrieved party
represented by NGOs, social activist groups, persons or organizations may directly approach
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution, when there has been a violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution, of any person or class of persons. 

Therefore, Locus Standi  is a place of standing attributed to a person who has the right to
initiate legal action or be heard in a court of law. Thus, anyone with a legal grievance has a
right to approach the Court, based on the concept of locus standi. However, under a Public
Interest Litigation it is this concept of locus standi which has been relaxed and made more
flexible to broaden the scope of litigation by taking into account the voices, rights and needs
of the poor, underprivileged and marginalized.
In India, prior to the 1980s, it was only the aggrieved party that could seek justice in the
Court of law and a person who was not affected personally could not approach the Court as a
representative of the aggrieved party. Thus, the locus standi was vested only in the aggrieved
affected party to file a case in the Courts. As a result of this, there was a huge gap in the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution on one hand and the laws on the other and it was the
rights of the poor, illiterate and underprivileged that remained neglected and abandoned by
the entirely legal system.  
Under the traditional legal system, the locus standi with respect to the Writ jurisdiction
includes only those persons who:
 have suffered a legal injury as a result of the violation of his/her legal right or
interest; or
 is likely to suffer a legal injury as a result of the violation of his/her legal right or
interest. 
Therefore, in order to acquire a locus standi a personal legal right of an individual must be
threatened or violated. 
A Public Interest Litigation is litigation involving the interest of the general public at large. A
PIL may be filed by an individual or a group of persons, typically NGOs, social activist
groups, persons or organizations. Therefore, the emergence of Public Interest Litigation has
been instrumental in bringing about a positive transformation in the scope of access to justice
by individuals through radical changes, especially by relaxing the concept of locus standi  to
address the grievances and issues affecting the general public at large.
Public Interest Litigation and the Constitution of India 
The Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 322 of the
Constitution when there has been a violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III
of the Constitution. The fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution
would be rendered meaningless unless adequate safeguards are provided to ensure an
effective mechanism for their enforcement. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution has been
declared the heart and soul of the Constitution by the framers of the Constitution. 
The Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are enforceable and justiciable and
any law which is inconsistent or abrogates the Fundamental Rights is void. Thus, when there
is an infringement of a Fundamental Right, Article 32 can be invoked. The Supreme Court
has the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate,
to enforce any rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.3  
Similarly, the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked under Article 2264 of the
Constitution when there has been a violation of Fundamental Rights. However, the main
difference between Article 32 and 226 is that the former can be invoked only for the
enforcement of Fundamental rights whereas the latter can be invoked not only for the
enforcement of Fundamental Rights but for ‘any other purpose’ as well. 5  Therefore, the
power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is restricted as compared to the power of the
High Court under Article 226, which are wider.
A PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and in the High Court under Article
226 where a question related to the enforcement of a Fundamental Right is involved.
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subbra Chakraborty6 the Supreme Court held that “to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 32, it is not necessary that the affected person should personally
approach the Court. The Court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo
motu or on a petition of any public-spirited individual or body.” Moreover, a private interest
case can also be treated as a public interest case. 
Furthermore, Article 39A imposes an obligation on the state to secure that the operation of
the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall provide free legal
aid, by suitable legislation or schemes, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not
denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Therefore, the concept of
Public Interest Litigation is also premised on the core mandate of Article 39A i.e., to secure a
legal system which promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity. 
The Supreme Court has entertained numerous petitions under Article 32 complaining of a
violation of Fundamental Rights of individuals, or of the poor, weak, underprivileged or
oppressed groups who are themselves unable to claim and fight for their own rights.   

Evolution and Development of Public Interest Litigation

In Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v Union of India7 the Court reiterated that with an
expansion of bureaucratic power, there was an increased chance of misuse of legal standing,
and thus greater flexibility was the need of the hour. The concept of locus standi was
widened to deal with the ever-expanding scope of socio-economic justice. 
In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Thai8 Justice Krishna Iyer for the first time sowed the
seeds of the concept of public interest litigation. The case dealt with the payment of bonus to
the workmen of an industry. It was held that “public interest is promoted by spacious
construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and conceptual
latitudinarianism permits taking liberties in the individualisation of the right to invoke the
higher courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they
are weaker.”  
One of the earliest cases on Public Interest Litigation was that of Hussainara
Khatoon  v State of Bihar9 which focused on the inhuman conditions of the prisons and under
trial prisoners. In the instant case, a petition was filed under Article 32 by an advocate
highlighting the condition of under-trial prisoners who were languishing in various jails in
Bihar and to protect their personal liberty. The Supreme Court held that in matters which are
in the larger interest of the public right to speedy justice is a Fundamental Right, which
comes within the scope of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ guaranteed under Article 21. 
Subsequently, in S P Gupta  v Union of India10, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution by lawyers raising certain pertinent questions concerning High Court judges.
The petition was maintainable because the lawyers practising in the High Courts have an
interest in the independence of the High Courts and speedy disposal of cases. 
Where the independence of the judiciary is threatened by illegal state action, the lawyers
would be interested in challenging the constitutionality or legality of such action. This case
paved the way for a new era of public interest litigation in India and it became a potent tool to
enforce public duty which has otherwise been executed illegally resulting in injury to the
public.

This case was a precursor of public interest litigation in India. Justice P N Bhagwati observed
that, “Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by any act or omission of the
State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the
public acting bona fide  and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of
such wrong or public injury.” 
Justice Bhagwati emphasized the need for PIL in India and held that “if public duties are to
be enforced and social collective “diffused” rights and interests are to be protected, we have
to utilize the initiative and zeal of public-minded persons and organizations by allowing them
to move the Court and act for a general or group interest, even though they may not be
directly injured in their own rights”. 

Moreover, where a petitioner moves the Court in his private interest to seek redressal for his
personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of public interest may enquire into the subject
matter of the litigation in the interest of justice. Thus, public interest litigation relates to the
nature of the proceedings and no one particular forum is competent to deal with such
litigation. 

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India11, a matter related to the release of bonded

labour was raised by an organization which was dedicated to the cause of the release of
bonded labour before the Supreme Court. The Court held that  “public interest litigation 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 signature tune of our Constitution.”
Thus, the Court emphasized that where a person or a class of persons whose Fundamental
Rights have been violated causing any legal injury and such a person is unable to approach
the court owing to poverty or being in a socially or economically disadvantaged position, in
such cases any member of the public acting bona fide can approach the court for relief under
Article 32. 
Therefore, the Courts made it amply clear through these judgments that the Fundamental
Rights are not only for the rich and the well to do who have the means to approach the Court
but also for the larger ordinary masses who are poor, illiterate, underprivileged and
marginalized and owing to lack of awareness and resources are unable to seek judicial
redress.12    
However, over the past many years the function of public interest litigation has broadened
and is not merely restricted to addressing the grievances of the weak and disadvantaged
individuals. Instead, it is being used to address the grievances which concern the general
public and society as a whole, rather than a specific individual. Under the traditional and
more rigid rule of locus standi such public grievances could not be brought to the Court by
anyone. 
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India13, an organization working
towards securing the democratic rights of the people complaining of breaches of labour laws
who were workers engaged in the construction of Asiad projects was brought before the
Supreme Court under Article 32. Justice P N Bhagwati in the instant case explained that a
PIL is not brought before the Court only to enforce the rights of one individual against
another which is what happens under the ordinary traditional litigation. Instead, it is filed to
enforce the collective rights of a class of persons whose Fundamental Rights have been
violated. 
Therefore, a wide range of cases are included within the scope of public interest litigation
viz., socio-economic problems, administrative problems affecting the general public at large,
protection of the environment, misuse of powers by Ministers, labour rights etc. Thus, any
person who has sufficient interest can initiate an action to provide redressal for public injury
arising from the violation of public duty or any provision of the Constitution or law and
ensure the enforcement of such public duty and law. 

However, it cannot be denied that there is rampant abuse of public interest litigation as well.
Public interest litigation cannot be treated as “personal interest litigation” filed for personal
and selfish reasons. The petitioner should not be motivated by malice or have an intention to
malign or harm others or be driven by selfish and personal motives or political
considerations. The petitioner should have sufficient interest and must act bona fide to further
the cause of justice. 
The Supreme Court has time and again warned that public interest litigation must be used
with care and circumspection and it also imposes a duty on the judiciary to be careful to see
that the redressal sought for a public grievance is genuine. However, where there has been an
undue delay on the part of the petitioner to file a PIL the court may refuse to take cognizance
of it. 

Therefore, Public Interest Litigation has prospered in India due to lack of accountability and
responsibility on the part of the Government. The reason why people are compelled to
approach the Courts to enforce their basic Fundamental Rights is because the administration
fails to discharge its role effectively and act as per law.    

Category of Cases Covered by PIL

Originally, it was only in Habeas Corpus petitions that PIL was recognised and subsequently
in the case of under trial prisoners. The scope of PIL broadened over time and it covered the
following matters as well:

 atrocity against women, rape cases, murder, kidnapping;

 children who are neglected;  
 child labour and child abuse;
 bonded labour cases;
  non-payment of minimum wages to workmen;
 complaints against police for refusing to register case related to custodial death or
harassment by police;
 bride burning;
 harassment or torture against the downtrodden and economically backward class
of individuals, especially women and children;
 environment protection. 
Drawbacks Related to Public Interest Litigation
 A PIL may give rise to the problem of “competing rights”. Where the Court
orders the closure of the polluting industry, the rights and interest of the
workmen working in the industry may be violated as their only source of
livelihood is taken away from them and this aspect may be ignored by the Court.
 People can misuse and file frivolous PILs motivated by personal and selfish
reasons or malice. It is for this reason that the Courts have reiterated time and
again that PIL is not “personal interest litigation” for corporate, personal and
political gains. This leads to the overburdening of the courts. 
 In the process of solving socio-economic issues or a problem associated with the
protection of the environment, the judiciary may in certain cases exercise judicial
overreach through the PILs.  
 There is an inordinate delay in the disposal of PIL cases especially matters
involving the poor and disadvantaged. This defeats the whole purpose of speedy
justice and dilutes the importance of judgment.