Public Interest

Litigations (PIL)
- Ms. SHRIYA MAINI Advocate
BCL(Oxon) B.A. LL.B (Hons)
University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Oxford Global Justice Scholar 2015-16
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
E-mail: shriya.maini90@gmail.com
• Court practice in PIL cases under Article
32 is Unique – separate treatment .
• SC has made innovations in procedure
to ensure that it is not constrained by any
Code or Procedural Law, and rather
protection of FR is more meaningful. -
“substance over form”.
• Hence, SC deals with PIL differently
from other writs/appeals/cases.
• Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949
• (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
• (2) The Supreme Court shall have 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, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by this Part (FR) – VERY
WIDELY WORDED AND NOTHING
PRECLUDED – INNOVATIVE SECTION
•  Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect
and deliver prompt social justice with the help of
law.
• PIL is a RULE OF LAW declared by the
courts of record - PIL is a Rule of law declared
by the Courts of record which notes down and
keeps record of all its proceedings until all
levels of appeal are exhausted. Hence, no PILs
entertained which are born with pecuniary
interest – DOCTRINE OF CLEAN HANDS –
NO PRIVATE INTEREST – Abuse of Court
process.
 1. Relaxation of Rule of “Locus Standi” :
• What is Locus Standi ?
• A person whose rights are affected alone
(“AGGRIEVED PARTY”) can approach the Court with
the limited exception of Habeas Corpus Petition/
Petition by a minor, where others are entitled to
approach the Court.
• Over the years, Court felt it should not apply this RULE
to WRITS because Courts should make themselves more
accessible to people (who are not rich/informed) and
hence, public spirited individuals should be allowed to
approach Courts for redressal of grievances on behalf
of silent suffering oppressed persons.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Kapila
Hingorani filed a petition on behalf of several
prisoners lodged in Bihar jails on the basis of a
newspaper article – SC said all of them should
get free legal aid and speedy trials. Because of
this case 40,000 prisoners, whose cases were
pending in the Courts, were released from the
jail.

• S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) – Hon’ble

Supreme Court for FIRST TIME defined the
term “PIL” in the Indian Context.
“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
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.”
• JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOUDHARY -
Chaudhary wanted to intervene to assist
Special Court in Bofors case in “public
interest” – SLP (Appeal) REJECTED
because rule of Locus Standi is relaxed for
PIL filings and ANY MEMBER OF PUBLIC
(person or NGO) WHO IS ACTING
BONAFIDE (without pecuniary/ political/
personal/self or private interest) WITH
BROADLY, A SUFFICIENT INTEREST
(not a mere busybody or meddle stone
interloper) can file a PIL.
YES, LOCUS STANDI IS RELAXED and every citizen has
a right to maintain a PIL for :
1. Challenging unconstitutional Executive action (action of
Union govt.)
2. Challenging the promulgation of an Ordinance (But SC
very recently refused to entertain PIL against Teen Talaq
ordinance – Raju Ramachandran appeared for Muslim
group saying fraud played, no need for urgency but SC said
nothing doing, we will NOT go into merits – LS passed but
RS didn’t, hence, ordinance.)
3. Opposing withdrawal from Prosecution (S.321 CrPC).

• DO NOT FILE PIL W/o RESEARCH – S.P. Anand v. H.D.

Dave Gowda - don’t be a knight errant roaming at will in
pursuit of issues providing publicity.
No, Locus Standi Rule cannot be relaxed:
1. Self interest (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar -
Petitioner was a contractor who used to purchase slurry
from Respondents for several years, which had recently
stopped so he went and filed a PIL against factory
owners for allegedly polluting rivers in Bokaro, Bihar,
in the self interest to get contract back.)
2. Third Party who is total stranger to the prosecution
culminating in conviction & sentence awarded to
convicts does not have any right to challenge
conviction. (Subramanium Swamy & Shashi Tharoor).
3. Person aggrieved and directly affected must approach
the Court, unless he is disabled from doing so, no
relaxation.
 2. Relaxation of filing procedure in PIL Cases

• Very relaxed - Under trials/ homeless/ workers/

poverty stricken/helpless victims of exploitative
society
• Act on Newspaper reports/letters/writs based on
newspaper reports/own motion – But identity of
person writing the letter must NOT be concealed to
verify authenticity.
• Court has framed guidelines for such letters: used
by PIL Cell to see if maintainable or not, then PIL
registered.
Letter-petitions falling under these categories alone will
ordinarily be entertained as PIL :-
• Bonded Labour matters.
• Neglected Children.
• Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and
exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of
Labour Laws (except in individual cases).
• Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-
mature release)
• seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail,
death in jail, transfer, release on personal bond, speedy trial
as a fundamental right – DHC usually will see unless serious.
• Petitions against police for refusing to register a case,
harassment by police and death in police custody.
• Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular
harassment of bride, bride burning, rape, murder,
kidnapping etc.
• 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.
• 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.
• Petitions from riot -victims.
• Family Pension.
Cases which will not be entertained as Letter - PIL :
(1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
(2) Service matter and matters of Pension and Gratuity.
(3) Complaints against Central/ State Government
Departments and Local Bodies except those Nos. (1) to (10)
(4) Admission to medical & 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 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.

PIL Cell in the Supreme Court

3. PIL IS NOT ADVERSERIAL LITIGATION
• Adversarial Litigation – Judge plays a passive role and like
an umpire, only judges on basis of evidence adduced and
cross examined by both parties as per CPC & Indian Evidence
Act – JUDGE DOES NOT INQUIRE OF ITS OWN.
• In PIL, because parties not at arms length (in = , maybe
poor or backward & for person acting pro bono publico, very
tough to gather and know ALL information), Adversarial
System totally unsuited (J. Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha case).
• Purpose oriented justice : to secure F.R. Court can devise
any new method/tool/technique – INQUISITORIAL
INNOVATIVE ROLE because +ve duty to protect FR.
 Appointment of Amicus Curiae
• SC appoints a practicing SC lawyer to assist the Court because pro
bono publico person may not have complete legal info – EARLIER
PERCEPTION but after Dec 12 Gang Rape appeals – ML
Sharma Adv. Protested saying Media says I am incompetent so
Justice Bhanumathi clarified, no, we have appointed amicus even
where Seniors have argued – Hegde and Raju Ramachandran
appointed as amicus for 2 convicts’ appeals each.
• Amicus presents the case in proper legal manner before Court -
independent advisers, usually in complicated or sensitive
matters (FRIENDS OF COURT).
• SC Panel for Amicus appointment – 10 years long practice ; past
experience; last 2 years Orders.
• VERY MEAGRE FEES BUT – Rs. 6,000/- at admission stage &
Rs. 10,000/- at final hearing/regular stage & NOT ANY OTHER
FEES.
 Instances of Fact Finding Commissions
appointed by Court
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India – letter petition
complaining about prevalence of bonded labour in stone
quarries of Faridabad district of Haryana – Necessity of
indepth investigation.
• “Eyes of Court”: 2 Advocates as Commissioners to inquire into
working conditions of stone quarry workers; 2 socio-legal
experts; 1 to oversee compliance of Court Order.
• Report of Commissioner – copy supplied & objections can be
filed by parties to dispute fact but he cannot be cross examined
(Adversarial touch not allowed in PIL) – Court discretion
whether to take findings as meritorious or not.
• Order 47 of SC Rules - Inherent powers of SC to secure the
ends of justice – to protect FR under Art. 32.
 Implementation of Orders of Court in PIL Cases
appointed by Court
• 1. Petition kept pending & repeated Affidavits of
Compliance called for (Rajive Ratouri v. UOI –
disability inclusions for Court buildings)
• 2. Court monitors implementation on its own
(Bandhua Mukti Morcha case)
• 3. Monitoring Committee appointed (Court framed
a scheme dealing with Beedi workers in Tamil Nadu
& directed Secretary, Legal Aid, T.N. to monitor)
• 4. Court can request concerned HC ( Env. Matters
– Indian Council for Enviro-legal action v UOI)
 A Case Study of PIL
• Env. And corruption matters
• Vineet Narain v. U.O.I (1998) – govt. agencies like CBI
& CVC & Revenue Authorities had failed to perform
their legal obligations in failing to investigate matters
of a serious criminal – bureaucrat nexus. Court felt
one simple Mandamus NOT sufficient, hence,
CONTINUING MANDAMUS SYSTEM EVOLVED -
Court said we will monitor investigation repeatedly &
matter kept pending for years as a PIL & progress
reports called for - NUMEROUS MATTERS SAW
CHARGESHEET FILINGS AGAINST
POLITICIANS DURING THIS TIME – in camera.
 4. Orders passed in PIL Cases
• Makes a difference to people’s lives.
• Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar –
Committee formed to provide basic facilities in Bihar
Mental Hospital - Court directed food, water supplies
to be made available by directing Exe. Engineer and
State of Bihar (govt.) to grant 3 Cr. For building repair.
• Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
• MC Mehta v. UOI – regulate traffic in Delhi ; Taj
• Sakshi v. UOI – child sexual abuse covered in IPC
Rape 376 definition – Law Commission directed to
examine the same and make recommendations.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – Court issued
directions for speedy trial of prisoners languishing in
jails – released undertrials who had suffered jail for
max. period – newspaper report

• Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. UOI – Tanneries in

TN released effluents into river Palar, SC called for
various reports and directed TN State Govt. to
constitute an authority u/s 3(3) of Env. Protection Act
headed by a retired HC judge.
• Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum – Comp. and
need for rehab of Rape Victims. – NCW directed to
frame a scheme within 6 months & UOI to examine
scheme ASAP.
 Limitations on PIL Jurisdiction
• State of HP v. A Parent of a Student – Court cannot assume
function of Executive /Leg.

• Vincent Panikurlangakara v. UOI - Petitioner had filed

petition for withdrawal of numerous drugs from market –
Court said questions of policy and technical intricacies are for
Union to Decide.

• Tehri Dam PIL - Court said Tehri Dam considered by experts

and clearance given thereafter, SC can only confirm and see if
govt. was conscious of danger or not and Court has confirmed
that by investigating – COURT said I cannot do more pls.
 5. Procedure in Public Interest Litigations- same as writ petitions :

1. If PIL pending in SC, don’t go to a HC & obtain Interim

Orders – MATTER TO BE HANDLED ONLY BY SC and
case transferred to SC – stone crushing quarry owners rushed
to HC because UOI as per SC direction had prohibited stone
crushing.
2. A PIL cannot be withdrawn w/o reason as per his/her own
sweet will because not a private litigation – Sheela Burse v.
Union of India (PIL for non implementation of statutory &
Const. obligations w.r.t. children in Observation Homes) -
adverse personal remarks were made by HC against her and
the same were deleted by SC saying she is just a social
worker and was acting in larger public interest – Order 1
Rule 8 of CPC N/a PIL – Sue/Defend in own name.