Public Interest Litigation

The term "Public Interest" means the larger interests of

the public, general welfare and interest of the masses
((Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edn.) Vol.Xll) 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.“
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.
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.
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………………..”
• The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation
were initially sown in India by Krishna Iyer J., in 1976
in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai (AIR 1976 SC
1455) and was initiated in Akhil Bharatiya Shoshit
Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (AIR
1981 SC 298), wherein an unregistered association of
workers was permitted to institute a writ petition
under Art.32 of the Constitution for the redressal of
common grievances. Krishna lyer J., enunciated the
reasons for liberalization of the rule of Locus Standi in
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India
(AIR 1981 SC 344) and the idea of 'Public Interest
Litigation' blossomed in S.P. Gupta and others vs.
Union of India, (AIR 1982 SC 149).
 Justice Krishna Iyer in the Fertilizer Corporation
Kamgar Union case enumerated the following
reasons for liberalization of the rule of Locus Standi:-
1. Exercise of State power to eradicate corruption may
result in unrelated interference with individuals’
rights.
2. Social justice warrants liberal judicial review
administrative action.
3. Restrictive rules of standing are antithesis to a
healthy system of administrative action.
4. Activism is essential for participative public justice.
Therefore, a public minded citizen must be
given an opportunity to move the court in the
interests of the public.
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
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.
Public Interest Litigation is working as an important
instrument of social change. It is working for the welfare of
every section of society. It’s the sword of every one used only
for taking the justice. 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 Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, Supreme Court ordered for
the release of bonded labourers. In Murli S. Dogra v. Union of
India, the Supreme Court banned smoking in public places. In
a landmark judgment of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s
Forum v. Union of India, 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
 Aspects of Public Interest Litigation 
(a) Remedial in Nature:
Remedial nature of PIL departs from
traditional locus standi rules. 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 had changeth the
procedural nature of the Indian law into 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.
(b) 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. PIL is a modified form of
class action.
(c) Non-adversarial Litigation:
In the words of Supreme Court in People’s
Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, “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:
1. Collaborative litigation: In collaborative litigation the effort is
from all the sides. The claimant, the court and the Government
or the public official, all are in collaboration here to see that
basic human rights become meaningful for the large masses of
the people. PIL helps executive to discharge its constitutional
obligations. Court assumes three different functions other than
that from traditional determination and issuance of a decree.
(i). Ombudsman- The court receives citizen complaints and
brings the most important ones to the attention of responsible
government officials. (ii) Forum – The court provides a forum or
place to discuss the public issues at length and providing
emergency relief through interim orders. (iii) Mediator – The
court comes up with possible compromises.
2. Investigative Litigation: It is investigative litigation because it
works on the reports of the Registrar, District Magistrate,
comments of experts, newspapers etc.
(d) Crucial Aspects:
The flexibility introduced in the adherence to
procedural laws. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra v. State of U.P., Supreme Court rejected the
defense of Res Judicta. Court refused to withdraw
the PIL and ordered compensation too. To curtail
custodial violence, Supreme Court in Sheela Barse
v. State of Maharashtra, issued certain guidelines.
Supreme Court has broadened the meaning of Right
to live with human dignity available under the
Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a greatest
extent possible.
(e) Relaxation of strict rule of Locus Standi:
The strict rule of locus standi has been relaxed
by way of (a) Representative standing, and (b) Citizen
standing. In D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar , Supreme
Court held that a petitioner, a professor of political
science who had done substantial research and
deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation
of the constitutional provisions, challenged the
practice followed by the state of Bihar in
repromulgating a number of ordinances without
getting the approval of the legislature. The court held
that the petitioner as a member of public has
‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a petition under
Article 32.
 The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person
acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of
Public Interest Litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the court to wipe out 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…court has to strike balance between two conflicting
interests:
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions
seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive and the
legislature. It is depressing to note that on account of trumpery
proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are
wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the
disposal of cases of genuine litigants. Though the Supreme Court
spares no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept
of PIL and extending its ling arm of sympathy to the poor,
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights
are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed,
unrepresented and unheard.
 COMPILATION OF GUIDELINES (by Supreme Court) TO BE FOLLOWED
FOR ENTERTAINING LETTERS/PETITIONS RECEIVED

Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone

will ordinarily be entertained as Public Interest Litigation:-
1. Bonded Labour matters.
2. Neglected Children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and
exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation
of Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-
mature release)* and seeking release after having
completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer, release on
personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right.
– *Petitions for PREMATURE RELEASE, parole etc. are not
matters which deserve to be treated as petitions
u/Article 32 as they can effectively be dealt with by the
concerned High Court. To save time Registry may
simultaneously call for remarks of the jail Superintendent
and ask him to forward the same to High Court. The main
petition may be forwarded to the concerned High Court
for disposal in accordance with law.
– Even in regard to petitions containing allegations against
Jail Authorities there is no reason why it cannot be dealt
with by the High Court. But petitions complaining of
torture, custody death and the like may be entertained
by this Court directly if the allegations are of a serious
nature.
 (5) Petitions against police for refusing to register a
case, harassment by police and death in police
custody.
(6) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular
harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder,
kidnapping etc.
In such cases where office calls for police
report if letter petitioner asks for copy the same
may be supplied, only after obtaining permission
of the Hon'ble Judge nominated by the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India for PIL matters.
(7) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of
villagers by co- villagers or by police from persons
belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
and economically backward classes.
(8) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution,
disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food
adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture,
antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of
public importance.
(9) Petitions from riot -victims.
(10) Family Pension.
 Cases falling under the following categories will not be
entertained as Public Interest Litigation and these may be
returned to the petitioners or filed in the PIL Cell, as the case
may be:
(1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
(2) Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity.
(3) Complaints against Central/ State Government Departments
and Local Bodies except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10)
above.
(4) Admission to medical and other educational institution.
(5) Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and
Subordinate Courts.
In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife,
children and parents, the petitioners may be asked to file a
Petition under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. Or a Suit in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the
nearest Legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice.
• If on scrutiny of a letter petition, it is found that the
same is not covered under the PIL guidelines and no
public interest is involved, then the same may be
lodged only after the approval from the Registrar
nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
• It may be worthwhile to require an affidavit to be
filed in support of the statements contained in the
petition whenever it is not too onerous a
requirement.
• The matters which can be dealt with by the High
Court or any other authority may be sent to them
without any comment whatsoever instead of all
such matters being heard judicially in this Court
only.
• All letter-petitions received in the PIL Cell will
first be screened in the Cell and only such
petitions as are covered by the above
mentioned categories will be placed before a
Judge to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India for directions after which the
case will be listed before the Bench concerned.
• If a letter-petition is to be lodged, the orders to
that effect should be passed by Registrar
(Judicial) (or any Registrar nominated by the
Hon'ble Chief Justice of India), instead of
Additional Registrar, or any junior officer.
 ENVIRONMENT
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 ……..”
• In Banwansi Sewa Ashram v U.P.[(1986) 3SCC 753.]
and Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand,[A.I.R.
1980 SC 1622] the court moved towards
formulating a right to balanced and sustainable
economic development. In the former case, the
court had to consider the claims of tribals and other
backward peoples living within the forest reserves,
who used the forest area as their habitat. When the
state government decided that a super thermal
plant of the National Thermal Power Corporation
Ltd. would be located in these lands and considered
acquisition proceedings against these peoples, the
court held that
• Constituting a balance between the right to protection
against environmental degradation and securing
sustainable development was a part of the decisions in
M/S A.R.C. Cement Ltd. v U.P.[(1993) Supp. (1) SCC
57.]and Tarun Bharat Sangh v India[(1993) Supp. (1)4].
In A.P. Pollution Control Board v Prof. M.V.
Nayudu[(1999) 2 SCC 718.], the court held that
environmental concerns are of equal importance as
human rights concerns and both are to be traced to
Article 21. In environmental matters, it was the duty of
the court to render justice by taking into consideration
that there should neither be danger to the
environment or the ecology nor a lack of sustainable
development. The right to clean air and water as a part
of Article 21 was enunciated by the court in this case
and in M.C. Mehta v Union of India.[A.I.R. 1988 SC
1037; M.C. Mehta v India, (1999) 6 SCC 9, 12.]
• In Ratlam, ,[A.I.R. 1980 SC 1622] the court considered the
question whether it could compel a statutory body like the
municipal corporation of a town (under provisions of the
local Municipal Act, the Civil Procedure Code and the
Criminal Procedure Code) to carry out its duty to the
community by constructing proper sanitation facilities. It
held that “public nuisance (like open drains, garbage etc.)
because of pollutants being discharged by big factories to
the detriment of poorer sections is a challenge to the social
justice components of the rule of law. Likewise, the
grievous failure of local authorities to provide the basic
amenity of public conveniences …. Decency and dignity are
non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first
charge on local self governing bodies. A responsible
municipal council constituted for the purpose of preserving
public health ….cannot run away from its principal duty….
depletion of forests disturbed the ecology and the
climate cycle, but “at the same time we cannot lose
sight of the fact that for industrial growth as also for
the provision of improved living facilities there is great
demand in this country for energy such as electricity.
A scheme to generate electricity, therefore, is of
national importance and cannot be deferred.” Court
directions about how land for the power project could
be freed from an earlier judicial ban of dispossession
of tribals also balanced the need to secure the rights
of these people by making provisions for legal aid and
the proper administrative infrastructure for assisting
them in making claims when their lands were
acquired.
 Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehra
Dun v. st. of UP, AIR 1988 SC 2187; S/C directed a
letter from the Rural litigation & entitlement
kendra, Dehra Dun, to be treated as a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The alleged
that illegal limestone quarrying was devastating the
fragile environment in the Himalayan foothills
around Massori. Court used the committee
mechanism to supervise the implementation of
judicial orders. A monitoring committee was
formed to oversee the running of three milestones
and to monitor the reforestation measures in the
region.
 A rehabilitation committee was also set up to
rehabilitate the mine owners whose mines had
been closed by the court without payment of
compensation. The rehabilitation committee was to
ensure that the displaced mine owners were given
alternative mining sites in other parts of the
country.
 In the case of HINDUSTAN TIMES V CENTRAL
POLLUTION BOARD a news paper cutting was
taken as complaint by the court of law [and was
treated as a public interest litigation]. In other
case kamalnath v union of India; kamalnath had a
lakeside hotel in Mussorie. The proprietors
wanted to increase the area. They encroached the
canal and built rooms there, thereby violating
right to clean environment by taking pollution at
grievous level. A news item of the same appeared
and it was considered by the court.
 CONSUMER PROTECTION THROUGH PIL
• Students of the National Law School of India
University, Bangalore, began collecting documents pursuant
to RTI applications since September last year. Initial
responses arrived only several months after having made RTI
applications. The responses were the basis on which they
drafted Volume I of Implementation Report titled “State of
Consumer Protection in Karnataka: An Analysis of the
Institutional Implementation of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, its Allied Rules and Regulations in the State of
Karnataka” released under the Chair on Consumer Law and
Practice, Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
• After submitting our Report to the Ministry of Consumer
Affairs, they expected the system to act upon the findings in
the Report however the Government ignored the findings
and overlooked the vacancies that were being created every
month at several District Forums across Karnataka.
It was shocking to note the steadily increasing
number of vacancies in the District Forums. Besides
the vacancies, a large number of District forums
were defunct, thus causing a huge pendency in
consumer matters. Nearly six District Forums across
the State of Karnataka became defunct owing to a
lack in quorum. The case pendency in the various
Consumer Forums in Karnataka reportedly reached
its highest ever mark since the establishment of
these Forums – the number in the State
Commission alone is nearing five thousand.
 Therefore, a writ petition filed in public interest
by 5 students of the National Law School of India
University, Bangalore who are seeking the proper
implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The petition deals with six issues which are:
a)      Vacancies in the various Consumer Forums;
b)      Case pendency in the various Consumer Forums
across the State of Karnataka;
c)      The setting up of additional District Forums;
d)     The non-disposal of cases within the mandated
statutory time;
e)      The setting up of a State Council and District
Councils; and
f)       The consequent non utilization of the funds allotted
for these purposes.
On April 1, 2013 the Hon’ble High Court Bench:
Chief Justice Wagela, and Justice Nagarathna
passed an Interim Order directing the State
Government, Department of Food, Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs and the 
Karnataka State Consumers Disputes Redressal
Commission
 to fill up the vacancies at the State Commission
and also several District Forums across
Karnataka by May 31, 2013.
[Centre for Research and Policy, http:clpr.org.in;
posted on April 06, 2013]
Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation
Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors.; [Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 631 of 2004
Court's jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India has been invoked by the
petitioner, a registered charitable society, seeking
various directions to improve the conditions of
Government and aided schools and also school run
by the local authorities so that the constitutional
objective of providing free and compulsory
education under Article 21A of the Constitution of
India would be a reality.
The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2004 and
since then, several interim orders have been
passed giving directions to the States and the
Union Territories to provide the basic
infrastructure facilities like toilet facility,
drinking water, class rooms, appointment of
teachers and all other facilities so that children
can study in a clean and healthy environment.
While the matter was pending before this
Court, the Parliament enacted the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (in short 'the RTE Act').
This Court, therefore, directed the Central Government,
appropriate Government and other competent authorities
functioning under the RTE Act to issue proper
directions/guidelines for its full implementation within a period
of six months from the date of the pronouncement of that
judgment. This Court also directed all the State Governments to
constitute State Advisory Council within three months from the
date of that judgment. Advisory Councils so constituted were
directed to discharge their functions in accordance with the
provision of Section 34 of the RTE Act and advise the
Government in terms of Clauses (6), (7) and (8) of this Court's
order. The necessity of constituting a proper Regulatory
Authority for effective functioning of the RTE Act and its
implementation was also highlighted. The Central Government
was also directed to frame rules, in exercise of its powers under
Section 38 of the RTE Act, for proper implementation of the RTE
Act.
  Petition was disposed of with a direction to all
the States to give effect to the various directions
already given by this Court like providing toilet
facilities for boys and girls, drinking water facilities,
sufficient class rooms, appointment of teaching and
non- teaching staff etc., if not already provided,
within six months from the date of passing of
judgment. Directions were applicable to all the
schools, whether State owned or privately owned,
aided or unaided, minority or non- minority.