“The role of PIL in reform in Criminal Law”

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper was to review the meaning, purpose and procedure of
Public Interest Litigation and the role of PIL in reform in Criminal Law. The
paper described the meaning, purpose and procedure of Public Interest
Litigation. On the behalf of this study, it’s concluded that Public interest
litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system as well as in the
criminal justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could
hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance,
offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an
avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not
only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate
in government decision making. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows
us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to abour private
interests, settle Political scores or gain easy publicity.

Keywords: Public interest litigation (PIL), human rights, criminal justice

system, public interest.
 INTRODUCTION

The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American
jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganised
consumers, citizens who were passionate about the environmental issues, etc.

The term Public Interest Litigation was given a broader meaning in S.P.
Gupta vs. Union of India1, popularly known as the Judges Transfer Case where
it was observed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati that “any member of the public having
sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury
arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the
constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and
observance of such constitutional or legal provision”. Furthermore, the doctrine
of locus standi was relaxed in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs.
Abdulbhai2. It was observed that such relaxation was an absolute essential for
the maintenance of rule of law thereby furthering the cause of justice and
accelerating the pace of realization of the constitutional perspective.

Public interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law, for
the protection of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety,
Constructional hazards etc. Any matter where the interest of public at large is
affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.
Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been
interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large.

Public interest litigation is the power given to the public by courts through
judicial activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for a public interest and
not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body. The court can itself take
cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the
petition of any public spirited individual.

1
AIR 1982 SC 149
2
1976 SCC (3) 832
 PIL was started to protect the fundamental rights of people who are poor,
ignorant or in socially/economically disadvantaged position. It is different from
ordinary litigation, in that it is not filed by one private person against another for
the enforcement of a personal right. The presence of public interest is important
to file a PIL.

Public Interest Litigation is a sociological strategy of the judicial activism

shows comprehensive expansion of the judicial process in the complicated task
of mediating between social reality and social change. This judicial strategy is
being invoked as an instrument of social change and social development for
promoting social welfare. Degraded bonded abourers, humiliated inmates of
protective homes, women prisoners, the untouchables, children of prostitutes,
victims of custodial violence and rape and many other oppressed and victimized
groups are attracting remedial attention of the courts. At the same time the gap
between commitment and performance has resulted in chronic over commitment
of the judges to provide relief from all kinds of critical social ills afflicting the
Indian Society. It has become today a powerful weapon of the judicial activism
for involvement in social political and economic affairs of the society

Meaning And Definition Of PIL:

The term “Public Interest” means the larger interests of the public, general
welfare and interest of the masses3 and the word “Litigation” means “a legal
action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of law with the
purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy.” Thus, the expression `Public
Interest Litigation’ means “any litigation conducted for the benefit of public or
for removal of some public grievance.”

The words ‘Public Interest’ mean “an expression which indicates something in
which the general public or the community at large has some pecuniary interest,
or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” The word
‘litigation’ on the other hand means “a legal action, including all legal
proceedings initiated in a Court of Law with the purpose of enforcing a right or
seeking a remedy.”4

3
Oxford English Dictionary: 2nd Edn,.Vol.Xll
4
According to Black’s Law Dictionary/7th Edition states
In simple words, public interest litigation means. Any public spirited citizen can
move/approach the court for the public cause (or public interest or public
welfare) by filing a petition in the Supreme Court under Art.32 of the
Constitution or in the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution or before the
Court of Magistrate under Sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

According to 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.” S. Ratnavel
Pandian, J. In Janta Dai v. H.S. Chowdhary5 said, “Lexically the expression
“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 a
class of community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected.

5
AIR 1993 SC 892
 EVOLUTION OF PIL IN INDIA

The Indian PIL is an improved version of PIL of USA. “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.”6

The emergency period (1975-1977) witnessed a somewhat colonial nature of the

Indian legal system. During the period of 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.

Notably, two Justices of the Supreme Court, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N.
Bhagwati recognized the possibility of providing access to justice to the poor
and 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 showed a stark difference between the traditional justice
delivery system and the modern informal justice system where the judiciary is
performing an administrative judicial role. PIL is a 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 7 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
6
According to “Ford Foundation” of U.S.A.
7
AIR 1979 SC 1360
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.

In 1981, the case of Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar 8 exposed the brutalities of the
Police. Newspaper reports revealed that about 33 suspected criminals were
blinded by the police in Bihar, by putting acid into their eyes. Through interim
orders, the 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 9, the Supreme Court declared that
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.

Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as any other legal case and there have been
instances when even letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been
taken up as PILs and heard by the court.

CONCEPT OF PIL:

According to the jurisprudence of Article 32 of the Constitution of India, “The

right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.” Ordinarily, only
the aggrieved party has the right to seek redress under Article 32.

In 1981, Justice P. N. Bhagwati, articulated the concept of PIL as follows,

“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 or any
burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or

8
AIR 1982 SC 1008
9
1995) 3SCC 743
without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by reasons of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of public can
maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High
Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of fundamental rights of such
persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32 seeking
judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or
determinate class of persons.” 10

The rules of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting in a bonafide
manner and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of an Public Interest
Litigation will alone have the requisite locus standi and can approach the Courts
to wipe out any violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of
statutory provisions, but not for personal gain, or private profit, or political
motive, or any oblique consideration.11

The Supreme Court of India, in a case has iterated that “In an appropriate case,
where the petitioner might have moved a court in her private interest and for
redressal of the personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest
may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of
litigation in the interest of justice. Thus a private interest case can also be treated
as public interest case.”12

In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and
Ors, [J.T. 2003 (7) S.C. 312], the Supreme Court held,

“The Courts exercising their power of judicial review found to its dismay that
the poorest of the poor, depraved, the illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized
labour sector, women, children, handicapped by ‘ignorance, indigence and
illiteracy’ and other down trodden have either no access to justice or had been
denied justice. A new branch of proceedings known as ‘Social Interest
Litigation’ or ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was evolved with a view to render
complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persona. It expanded its wings

10
S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87
11
Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC 349
12
Indian Bank’s Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors., J. T. 2004
(4) SC 587
in course of time. The Courts in pro bono publico granted relief to the inmates of
the prisons, provided legal aid, directed speedy trial, maintenance of human
dignity and covered several other areas. Representative actions, pro bono public
and test litigations were entertained in keeping with the current accent on justice
to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass
the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural
shortcomings… Pro bono publico constituted a significant state in the present
day judicial system. They, however, provided the dockets with much greater
responsibility for rendering the concept of justice available to the disadvantaged
sections of the society. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its
necessity cannot be overemphasized. The courts evolved a jurisprudence of
compassion. Procedural propriety was to move over giving place to substantive
concerns of the deprivation of rights. The rule of locus standi was diluted. The
Court in place of disinterested and dispassionate adjudicator became active
participant in the dispensation of justice.”

ASPECTS OF PIL:

1. Remedial in nature: Remedial nature of PIL departs from the traditional

locus standi requirements. It indirectly incorporated the principles enshrined
in the Part IV of the Constitution of India into Part III of the Constitution.
By riding the aspirations of part IV into part III of the Constitution, the
Indian Judiciary had changed the procedural nature of the Indian law into a
dynamic welfare one. Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P., etc were the obvious examples of this change
in nature of judiciary.

2. Representative Standing: Representative standing can be seen as a creative

expansion of the well-accepted standing exception which allows a third
party to file a habeas corpus petition on the ground that the injured party
cannot approach the court himself. And in this regard the Indian concept of
PIL is much broader in relation to the American concept. PIL is a modified
form of class action.

3. Citizen Standing: The doctrine of citizen standing thus marks a significant

expansion of the court’s rule, from protector of individual rights to guardian
of the rule of law wherever threatened by official lawlessness.
4. Non-Adversarial Litigation: In the words of the SC, in People’s Union for
Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 S.C. 1473)

“We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public
interest litigation…is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary
traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where
there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or
seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or
resisting such relief”. Non-adversarial litigation has two aspects.”

IMPORTANT FEATURES OF PIL:

Through the mechanism of PIL, the courts seek to protect human rights in the
following ways:

1) By creating a new regime of human rights by expanding the meaning of

fundamental right to equality, life and personal liberty. In this process, the
right to speedy trial, free legal aid, dignity, means and livelihood, education,
housing, medical care, clean environment, right against torture, sexual
harassment, solitary confinement, bondage and servitude, exploitation and so
on emerge as human rights. These new reconceptualized rights provide legal
resources to activate the courts for their enforcement through PIL.

2) By democratization of access of justice. This is done by relaxing the

traditional rule of locus standi. Any public spirited citizen or social action
group can approach the court on behalf of the oppressed classes. Courts
attention can be drawn even by writing a letter or sending a telegram. This has
been called epistolary jurisdiction.

3) By fashioning new kinds of reliefs under the court’s writ jurisdiction. For
example, the court can award interim compensation to the victims of
governmental lawlessness. This stands in sharp contrast to the Anglo-Saxon
model of adjudication where interim relief is limited to preserving the status
quo pending final decision. The grant of compensation in PIL matters does
 not preclude the aggrieved person from bringing a civil suit for damages. In
PIL cases the court can fashion any relief to the victims.

4) By judicial monitoring of state institutions such as jails, women’s protective

homes, juvenile homes, mental asylums, and the like. Through judicial
invigilation, the court seeks gradual improvement in their management and
administration. This has been characterized as creeping jurisdiction in which
the court takes over the administration of these institutions for protecting
human rights.

5) By devising new techniques of fact-finding. In most of the cases the court has
appointed its own socio-legal commissions of inquiry or has deputed its own
official for investigation. Sometimes it has taken the help of National Human
Rights Commission or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or experts to
inquire into human rights violations. This may be called investigative
litigation.

 Filing a PIL under article 32, 226 Constitution of India or section 133 Cr.P.C:

The court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfills some basic needs for
PIL as the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited individual
and a social action group for the enforcement of legal or Constitutional rights to
any person who are not able to approach the court for redress. Any citizen can
file a public case by filing a petition:

 Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.

 Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.
 Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a magistrate’s court

ROLE OF PIL IN REFORM IN CRIMINAL LAW

PIL is working as an important instrument of social change. It is working for the
welfare of every section of society. The innovation of this legitimate instrument
proved beneficial for the developing country like India. PIL has been used as a
strategy to combat the atrocities prevailing in society. It’s an institutional
initiative towards the welfare of the needy class of the society. In Bandhu Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India, SC ordered for the release of bonded laborers.
In Murli S. Dogra v. Union of India, court banned smoking in public places. In a
landmark judgement of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of
India13, Supreme Court issued guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for
the rape on working women. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan Supreme court has
laid down exhaustive guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of working
women in place of their work.

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

13
(1995) 1 SCC 14
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 Bihar14, 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 India15. 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.

14
AIR 1979 SC 1360

15
AIR 1982 SC 149
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.

In the Judges Transfer Case Court held 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. It is a settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only
with clean hands but with clean mind, heart and with clean objectives.

In Shiram Food & Fertilizer case through Public Interest Litigation directed the
Co. Manufacturing hazardous & lethal chemical and gases posing danger to life
and health of workmen & to take all necessary safety measures before re-
opening the plant.

The landmark innovation of Public Interest Litigation was an important

contribution of Judicial Activism and the role of the judiciary had expanded
considerably with the help of Public Interest Litigation. As observed by Justice
Bhagwati, “it is the duty of the Court to innovate new methods and strategies to
provide access to justice to large masses of people who are denied basic human
rights.”Since then the courts have been flooded by PIL’S. In Hussainara
Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar16, the Court declared that the accused’s right to
speedy trials and free legal aid is contained as a right under article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal(1996), the Supreme
Court issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detentions of persons and

16
1979 AIR 1369
severely criticized the instances of Custodial Death and regarded it to be one of
the Worst Crimes in a Civilised Society to be governed by the Rule of Law.

In Sheela Barse vs. Union of India17, the Court directed the State Government to
set up necessary remand houses and observation homes where children accused
of an offence could be accommodated pending investigation and trial. With the
expansion of the locus standi rule, more cases relating to other social issues
came to be filed in the Court. The emergence of Public Interest Litigation led to
other landmark innovations and has become a potential weapon for enforcement
of public duties resulting out of public injury. This also led to the evolution of
the Epistolary jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court which is a unique feature
of Indian Supreme Court and means that mere letters addressed to the Court can
be treated as a writ petition in cases where there is a gross violation of
fundamental rights.

In Vishakha vs. the State of Rajasthan(1997), a PIL was filed in the Supreme
Court calling for the need for enacting a law to protect women from sexual
harassment and recognition of their rights which are guaranteed to them under
the Constitution of India. A three-Judge bench of the Court framed certain
guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment and these came
to be known as the Vishakha Guidelines which prompted the government to
enact the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition &
Redressal) Act, 2013. In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of
India(1994), a PIL was filed to uncover the pathetic plight of domestic servants
who were subjected to indecent sexual assault by seven army personnel. The
Supreme Court has laid down suitable guidelines in this regard to provide
amicable assistance to rape victims.

In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India(2015), a PIL was filed regarding the

constitutional validity of section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act stating it
to be in violation of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. In Lily Thomas vs.
Union of India(2000), a PIL was filed regarding section 8(4) of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 contending that the said section was in
contravention to article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held section 8(4) to be
17
JT 1988 (3) 15
ultra vires to the Constitution and held that any MP, MLA who was convicted of
a crime and punished with a term of two years would lose his seat in the house.

Public Interest Litigation makes sure that the rights of the people who are being
infringed are restored back. It has also proved to be a strong and effective
weapon for enabling the Court to discover several scams and corruption cases
that were prevalent in public life and punishing those persons who were guilty
of such practices. Not only public-spirited individuals but organizations too
have filed numerous PIL’s in the Court requesting inquiry and punishment for
those people who bypassed the laws and misused their official position in public
life. Public Interest Litigation has made access to justice easier. It has helped the
judiciary earn popularity as the saviour of democracy, protector of Rule of Law
and became an efficient tool for social transformation. It has also ensured that
the legislature and executive do not exercise excessive powers by keeping a
check on its functioning thereby upholding the doctrine of Separation of
Powers.

In case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Thai, the issue was the payment of
bonuses to workers in an industry. Justice V.R Krishna Iyer rightfully held that;
the right to approach courts when similar individual rights of several people are
infringed is the appropriate remedy in our socio-economic context.

In case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India an

organization dedicated to secure the rights brought a writ petition under Article
32 complaining about the violations of labour laws during the construction of
stadiums for the Asiad project. Justice P.N Bhagwati stated that a PIL is filed to
enforce the rights of a class of persons whose fundamental rights are violated, as
opposed to ordinary litigation where only the rights of an individual are
considered.

In recent times, the scope of PIL has expanded and is still expanding. PIL is
now not only a tool for addressing the issues of the poor and marginalized but
also for addressing social issues. However, under the traditional definition of
locus standi, problems and issues of public importance were not enforceable in a
court of law.

Currently, PIL deals with a wide variety of issues such as administrative

problems affecting society, socio-economic problems, abuse of power by
authorities, labour rights, and problems relating to the environment.

Although the object of a PIL is for addressing the concerns about the public,
individuals use PIL as a cover to accomplish their selfish goals. The petitioner
must act in good faith, keeping in mind the interest of the public and not to
attain his political, economic, or personal motives. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly warned that PIL must be used with care and caution. The courts may
refuse to accept a PIL if there is an unreasonable delay in filing it. Public
Interest Litigation continues to flourish in India due to the irresponsibility and
lack of accountability by the government.

Impact on public administration

PIL is a component that enables the poor to get equity. The advancement of this
authentic instrument demonstrated advantageous for creating a nation like India.
PIL has been utilized as a strategy to battle the abominations winning in the
general public. It may be suitable to finish up by citing Cunningham, “Indian
PIL may ideally be a Phoenix: an altogether new innovative emerging out of the
remains of the old request.” The great quality of the legal executive must be
used for the open great and in every case freely enthusiasm inside the
administration of the individuals. to control negligible suits by appropriate check
at the section and brisk removal is that the fundamental cure. The legal
executive can endure no more prominent absence of believability than an
observation that its requests are regularly spurned without any potential
repercussions. This court must abstain from passing requests that can’t be
implemented, whether or not the essential right could likewise be and anyway
acceptable the reason. It fills no need to give some status mandamus or
announcement which will stay just on paper. Albeit for the most part the
Supreme Court quickly passes between time orders for alleviation, infrequently
may the last decision be given, and in the vast majority of the cases, the follow-
up is poor.
The courts subsequently, got the chance to keep a mind the cases being recorded
and ensure the genuine enthusiasm of the solicitor and hence the idea of the
clarification for activity, to maintain a strategic distance from pointless suits.

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.

Guidelines to prevent misuse of PIL

As has been seen during a plethora of cases, this phenomenon is being misused
for personal and political interests.

One can find such abuse in the case of Janta Dal v. H. S. Chaudhari. During this
case, it is often seen how public interest litigation has been abused for political
reasons. In 1986, the government of India had placed orders for the acquisition
of Bofors Guns. For the aim of getting more information and evidence from
Swiss authority, the CBI moved an application before the Special Judge to issue
the letter of rogatory to Switzerland for receiving necessary support and
assistance in completing the relevant investigation. At this stage, H. S.
Chowdhary made an application publicly Interest under Article 51-A before the
special judge requesting the court to not issue the letter of rogatory unless the
allegation and charges levied on the accused are substantially proved. The
Special Judge dismissed the petition on the bottom that the petitioner has no
Locus Standi. Against this order, Sri Chaudhary filed a criminal revision before
the supreme court of Delhi under Section 397/482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code and prayed for the dismissal of the First Information Report(FIR). On this
issue, one judge of the supreme court held that the petitioner has no locus standi
to file a petition, and hence his petition wasn’t maintainable.

In a progression of decision equity, Ajith Pasayat has repeated the rules that PIL
wasn’t intended to progress political addition and political scores under the
appearance of PIL In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. Court set out
specific conditions on which the court must fulfil itself while engaging PIL.

The Court has got to be satisfied with:

 The credentials of the applicant.

 The clear accuracy or nature of the knowledge given by him.

To prevent abuse of the process of resorting to PIL the courts should provide
procedural guidelines in their rules. These should specify persons who may be
eligible to file public interest litigation. The legal practioners, public institutions,
NGO’s registered as non-profit organizations, Legal Aid clinics, may be
considered as eligible to apply. There should be a culture of pro bono services
among the PIL practioners in the field of human rights and pro-poor law.
The applicant must set out in detail the anticipated impact of the matter on the
advancement of constitutionalism and/or the development of human rights or
public interest law. If the anticipated impact affects and/or advances the rights of
a group or community, this should also be set out. The applicant should explain
very precisely what rights will be advanced through the proposed litigation. The
applicant should also state what alternatives to litigation have been considered
and explain why these have not been pursued. Before issuance of notice on a
PIL, the court should specifically direct itself to the nature of dispute that is
sought to be raised and identified by the petitioner, and then tentatively decide
whether it should initiate the proceedings.

To curb the perils of abuse of PIL, following suggestion can be used:

 Reject dubious PIL “at the threshold, and in appropriate case with
exemplary costs”,
 In cases where important projects or socio-economic regulations are
challenged after gross delay, such petitions “should be thrown out at the
very threshold on the ground of latches. Just because a petition is termed
as PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will
not apply. Latches is one of them”.
 PIL petitioners should be put on strict terms such as providing an
indemnity or giving an adequate undertaking to the court to make good
the damage, if PIL is ultimately dismissed. To avoid PIL that has
rendered invaluable service from becoming an unruly horse, “a firm sober
judicial jockey in the saddle is essential”.

Public interest litigation must also be screened in some way to prevent

floodgates of litigation. The court should punish with costs persons who might
bring unnecessary actions. High costs are a strong disincentive to litigation, even
where there is no barrier in the form of a requirement of standing.

CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigation is the result of judicial activism. The only objective
behind public interest litigation is to make the judiciary more responsive to the
needs of the section of society that usually cannot approach the courts to redress
their grievances. The judiciary acts as a guard for the society through this
change. The legislature usually deals with problems that are separated from the
masses and not connected with the welfare of common people.

Public Interest Litigation has significantly contributed to the enforcement and

protection of rights that were usually overlooked and prevented the misuse of
justice. PIL is necessary for the Indian context, which is ridden with injustice.
At its inception, PIL was used as a tool against persecution. Subsequently, there
was a huge inflow of trivial cases, but it should be seen as progress because it is
aimed at producing results at an affordable rate.

Although PIL has many benefits, the courts must be cautious to prevent private
interest through PILs. Judiciary shouldn’t use public interest litigation to
encroach the fields of executive and legislature. The challenge faced by courts is
in finding a balance between accepting a legitimate public concern while
rejecting the trivial ones. A way to ensure this is by setting up some economic
disincentives and only hearing cases that are primarily barred by a disability.

Public Interest Litigation, otherwise known as Class Litigation or Social Action

litigation, is different from the normal mode of litigation. The main objective of
PIL is to deliver justice to those who wouldn’t normally be able to access it. The
rule of locus standi has undergone radical changes to make it more flexible.
Now, any socially spirited person can file a PIL representing the grievances or
issues of a socially or economically backward community. With the evolution
and developments of PIL, accountability, and attitude of the government
towards the rights of weaker sections have seen drastic improvements. The
relaxed rule of locus standi and the betterment of government accountability
towards the weaker sections have made PIL one the most important and
effective tool for social change and to validate the Rule of Law as mentioned
under Article 14.

Public Interest Litigants, all over the country, have not taken very kindly to
some of the courts views talking about preventing unnecessary PILs by
imposition of high costs and compensation. It is feared that this will sound the
death-knell of the people friendly concept of PIL. However, bona fide litigants
of India have nothing to fear. Only those PIL activists who prefer to file
frivolous complaints will have to pay compensation to then opposite parties. It is
actually a welcome move because no one in the country can deny that even PIL
activists should be responsible and accountable. Since it is an extraordinary
remedy available at a cheaper cost to all citizens of the country, it ought not to
be used by all litigants as a substitute for ordinary ones or as a means to file
frivolous complaints.

However, now Public Interest Litigation does require a complete rethink and
restructuring as the overuse and abuse of PIL can only make it stale and
ineffective. There is a need for some strong measures to promote and protect the
actual purpose for which the PIL came into being, i.e., the enforcement of
fundamental and other legal rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of
legal redressal system or otherwise in a disadvantageous position, due to their
social o economic background

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1. S.N. MISHRA, Constitutional Law, thirteenth edn,
2. J.N. PANDEY, The Indian Constitution, eighth edn,

WEBSITES:
1. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/26528/10/10_chapter%203.pdf
2. https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080207174420AACGmRJ
3. http://moia.gov.in/pdf/Marriages_to_Overseas_Indians_a_Guidance_Booklet.pdf
4. https://books.google.co.in/books?
5. http://www.tcl-india.net/node/74
6.http://www.lawyersclubindia.com