NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Public Interest
Litigation
And its aspects and impact in India
(Jurisprudence I Project Report)
X trimester

Table of Contents
0

Sl.
No.

Topic

Page no.

1.

Introduction

2.

PIL as a means of Informal Justice

3.

PIL as an instrument of Social change

4.

Impact of PIL in India

5.

Analysis of PIL trends in India

6.

Conclusion

7.

Bibliography

Introduction
1

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.
The term Public Interest means the larger interests of the public, general welfare and
interest of the masses1 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, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) 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.
This project report basically aims to discuss the two aspects of PIL1. As a means of Informal Justice
2. As an instrument of Social change
These two aspects have further been studied in the project by the help of dividing PIL into
three phases in India.

PIL as a means of Informal Justice in India

Necessity of informal justice, whether as an alternative to state law or as to its agent to find
its identity in opposition to state law stems from the nature of Anglo-Saxon law prescribing
legal formalism and due to the failure of formal legal system to deliver justice that forced
informal
justice
to
take
on
a
separate
identity
from
state
law.2
The British rule bestowed a colonial legal heritage upon India. The Anglo-Saxon model of
adjudication insisted upon observance of procedural technicalities such as- locus standi and
adherence to adversarial system of litigation. The result was that the courts were accessible
only to the rich and the influential people and the marginalized and disadvantaged groups
continued to be exploited and denied basic human rights.
Late 1970s marked apparent shift from legal centralism to legal pluralism. 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 seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India by Krishna
Iyer J., in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai3 and was initiated in Akhil
1

((Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edn.) Vol.Xll)

http://ngosindia.com/resources/pil_sc.php
3
AIR 1976 SC 1455
2

Bharatiya Shoshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India 4 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.
Public interest litigation or social interest litigation today has great significance and has
drawn the attention of all those concerned. The traditional rule of Locus Standi that a
person, whose right is infringed alone can file a petition, has been considerably relaxed by the
Supreme Court. Ordinarily, only the aggrieved party has the right to seek redress under
Article 32. Now, the court permits public interest litigation at the instance of public spirited
citizens for the enforcement of constitutional-legal rights. Justice Krishna Iyer in Fertilizer
Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India 5 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 wants 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.
Further, traditional rule was considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in its other rulings
like:
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 6- The court now permits Public
Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance of Public spirited citizens" for
the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person or group of persons who
because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach court
for relief. Public interest litigation is a part of the process of participate justice and standing
in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps.
In the Judges Transfer Case7: Court held PIL 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 case8: SC through Public Interest Litigation directed the Co.
Manufacturing hazardous & lethal chemical and gases posing danger to life and health of

AIR 1981 SC 298

AIR 1981 SC 344
6
AIR 1982 S C 1473
7
AIR 1982, SC 149
8
AIR (1986) 2 SCC 176
5

workmen & to take all necessary safety measures before re-opening the plant.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India 9- Public Interest Litigation was brought against Ganga water
pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme court held that
petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of
statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who
make use of Ganga water.
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India10- Supreme Court held in the PIL filed by a human right
activist fighting for general public interest that it is a paramount obligation of every member
of medical profession to give medical aid to every injured citizen as soon as possible without
waiting for any procedural formalities.
Council For Environment Legal Action v. Union of India11: PIL filed by registered voluntary
organisation regarding economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court issued
appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to protect ecology.
State v. Union of India12: PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement which intended to
bring justice. Rule of Law does not mean that the Protection of the law must be available only
to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be abused and misused by the vested
interest.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar13, 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.
Therefore, a public minded citizen could be given an opportunity to move the court in the
interests of the public.
Further, the PIL can be sought even by way of letters, telegram, news article etc. This is the
Epistolary Jurisdiction that the PIL in India possesses. The judicial activism gets its
highest bonus when its orders wipe some tears from some eyes 14. This jurisdiction is
somehow different from collective action. Number of PIL cells was open all over India for
providing the footing or at least platform to the needy class of the society.

PIL as an Instrument of Social change

(1988) 1 SCC 471

AIR 1989, SC 2039
11
(1996)5 SCC 281
12
AIR 1996 Cal 181 p. 218
13
AIR 1979 SC 1360
14
Justice V. Krishna Iyer
10

PIL is working as an important instrument of social change. 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. Its an institutional initiative towards
the welfare of the needy class of the society.
In Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India15, S.C. ordered for the release of bonded
labourers. In Murli S. Dogra v. Union of India16, court banned smoking in public places. In
landmark judgement of Delhi Domestic Working Womens Forum v. Union of India17,
Supreme Court issued guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation for the rape on working
women. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan18 Supreme court had laid down exhaustive
guidelines for preventing sexual harassment of working women in place of their work.
PIL offers the chance for social change and welfare of the society by providing them informal
justice. Today, it offers a paradigm which locates the content of informal justice without
former legal system. It has molded the state into instrument of socio-economic change.

Impact of PIL in India

PIL has provided benefits to the common man, environment and society in various fields in
India.

It created a new regime of human rights by expanding the meaning of fundamental

right to equality, life and personal liberty.

It democratized the idea of access to justice. This was done by relaxing the traditional
rule of locus standi.

It fashioned new kinds of reliefs under the courts 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.

PIL provided judicial monitoring of State institutions such as jails, womens

protective homes, juvenile homes, mental asylums etc.

It devised 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

15

(1984) 3 SCC 161

AIR 2002 SC 40
17
(1995) 1 SCC 14
18
AIR 1997 SC 3011
16

(NHRC) or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or experts to inquire into human

rights violations.

Analysis of Public Interest Litigation trends in

India
The PIL discourse in India could be divided, in my view, into three broad phases. One will
notice that these three phases differ from each other in terms of at least the following four
variables: who initiated PIL cases; what was the subject matter/focus of PIL; against whom
the relief was sought; and how judiciary responded to PIL cases.
In the first phasewhich can be said to have begun in the late 1970s and that continued
through the 1980sthe PIL cases were generally filed by public-spirited persons (lawyers,
journalists, social activists or academics). Most of the cases related to the rights of
disadvantaged sections of society such as child labourers, bonded labourers, prisoners,
mentally challenged, pavement dwellers, and women. The relief was sought against the action
or non-action on the part of executive agencies resulting in violations of FRs under the
Constitution. During this phase, the judiciary responded by recognizing the rights of these
people and giving directions to the government to redress the alleged violations. In short, it is
arguable that in the first phase, the PIL became an instrument of the type of social
transformation/revolution that the founding fathers had expected to achieve through the
Constitution.
The second phase of the PIL can be said to have been in the 1990s during which several
significant changes in the chemistry of PIL took place. In comparison to the first phase, the
filing of PIL cases became more institutionalized such that several specialized NGOs and
lawyers started bringing matters of public interest to the courts on a much regular basis. The
breadth of issues which were raised in PIL also expanded tremendouslyfrom the protection
of environment to corruption-free administration, right to education, sexual harassment at the
workplace, relocation of industries, rule of law, good governance, and the general
accountability of the Government. It is to be noted that in this phase, the petitioners sought
relief not only against the action/non-action of the executive but also against private
individuals, in relation to policy matters and regarding something that would clearly fall
within the domain of the legislature. The response of the judiciary during the second phase
was by and large much bolder and unconventional than the first phase. For instance, the
courts did not hesitate to come up with detailed guidelines where there were legislative gaps.
The courts enforced FRs against private individuals and granted relief to the petitioner
without going into the question of whether the violator of the FR was the state. The courts
also took non-compliance with its orders more seriously and in some cases, went to the extent
of monitoring government investigative agencies and/or punishing civil servants for contempt
for failing to abide by their directions. The second phase was also the period when the misuse
6

of PIL not only began but also reached to a disturbing level, which occasionally compelled
the courts to impose fine on plaintiffs for misusing PIL for private purposes.
It is thus apparent that in the second phase the PIL discourse broke new grounds and
chartered on previously unknown paths in that it moved much beyond the declared objective
for which PIL was meant. The courts, for instance, took resort to judicial legislation when
needed, did not hesitate to reach centres of government power, tried to extend the protection
of FRs against non-state actors, moved to protect the interests of the middle class rather than
poor populace, and sought means to control the misuse of PIL for ulterior purposes.
On the other hand, the third phasethe current phase, which began with the 21st century
is a period in which anyone could file a PIL for almost anything. From the judiciarys point of
view, one could argue that it is time for judicial introspection and for reviewing what courts
tried to achieve through PIL. As compared to the second phase, the judiciary has seemingly
shown more restraint in issuing directions to the government. Although the judiciary is
unlikely to roll back the expansive scope of PIL, it is possible that it might make more
measured interventions in the future. If rights of prisoners, pavement dwellers, child/bonded
labourers and women were in focus in the first phase, issues such as environment, AIDS,
corruption and good governance were at the forefront in second phase, and development and
free market considerations might dominate the third phase. So, the way courts have reacted to
PIL in India is merely a reflection of what people expected from the judiciary at any given
point of time.
Most recently, the suspension order of IAS Officer- Mrs. Durga Shakti Nagpal was
challenged in the Allahabad High Court on 30 July 2013 through a PIL. The petition was
filed by social activist- Nutan Thakur at the Lucknow bench of the court. It also requested the
court to direct the central government to ask the state governments to prevent harassment of
those officers who have ordered action against illegal construction of religious places, and
illegal mining. On 1st August, 2013, the court ruled that the suspension is not a matter of a
PIL, and the officer should directly approach the court. It however praised her work in
preventing illegal sand mining and ordered both the central and the state government to report
how they are tackling illegal mining and what security is being provided to the officers
engaged in stopping it.
On 8th August, 2013, the Supreme Court of India accepted a PIL filed by an advocate M. L.
Sharma. The PIL sought to dismiss all charges against Nagpal and argued that Nagpal was
suffering hardship for following the court's rulings in 2009 and 2010 regarding demolition of
illegal religious structures. On August 16th, 2013, the court refused to accept the PIL,
questioning the standing of the lawyer, but saying that it may entertain the petition if she
(Nagpal) herself approaches the court.
Centre for Environment Law, WWF-I v. UOI and Ors 19is another recent case where PIL was
filed seeking a direction to implement the re-location programme for Asiatic Lions as
recommended by Wildlife Institute of India (WII), and approved by the Government of India.
19

2013 (5) SCALE 710

The court held that It should be duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living
creatures.And thus a commission was set up to safeguard these endangered species and for
monitoring the re-location programme. It thus, seems that the judicial attitude towards PIL in
the three phases has been a response, at least in part, to how it perceived to be the issues in
vogue.

Conclusion
PIL has proven to evolve the justice system in India by bringing a shift in the justicedispensing mechanism by ousting the formal legal redressal mechanism. It has radically
altered the traditional judicial role so as to enable the court to bring justice within the reach of
the common man. However, PIL in India is still in its experimental stage. Many deficiencies
in handling the kind of litigation are likely to come on the front. But these deficiencies can be
removed by innovating better techniques.
In essence, the PIL develops a new jurisprudence of the accountability of the state for
constitutional and legal violations adversely affecting the interests of the weaker elements in
the community.

Bibliography
The following book(s) and websites were used in making this project report:

Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,
Fourth Edition Reprint, (2002).

http://www.supremecourtonline.com/

www.manupatra.com

http://ngosindia.com/resources/pil_sc.php