What is a PIL?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - litigation for public interest. 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.

A PIL can be filed when the following conditions are fulfilled:

- There must be a public injury and public wrong caused by the wrongful act or omission of
the state or public authority.
- It is for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the community who
are downtrodden, ignorant and whose fundamental and constitutional rights have been
infringed.
- It must not be frivolous litigation by persons having vested interests.

Who may file a PIL?

The Supreme Court (SC), through its successive judgements has relaxed the strict rule of
'locus standi' applicable to private litigation.

Any person can file a PIL provided:

• He is a member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in
instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury.
• He is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.
• His action is not motivated by personal gain or any other oblique consideration.

How to file a PIL:

A PIL may be filed like a write petition. However, in the past the SC has treated even letters
addressed to the court as PIL. In People’s Democratic union v Union of India, a letter
addressed by the petitioner organization seeking a direction against the respondents for
ensuring observance of the provisions of famous labour laws in relation to workmen
employed in the construction work of projects connected with the Asian games was
entertained as a PIL.
The SC has encouraged the filing of PIL for tackling issues related to environment, human
rights etc.

What is Public Interest Litigation

IN 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."
Public Interest Litigation's explicit purpose is to alienate the suffering off all those who have
borne the burnt of insensitive treatment at the hands of fellow human being. Transparency in
public life & fair judicial action are the right answer to check increasing menace of violation
of legal rights. Traditional rule was that the right to move the Supreme Court is only available
to those whose fundamental rights are infringed.

But this traditional rule was considerably relaxed by the Supreme Court in its recent rulings:
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India ( A.I.R.. 1982 , S C 1473). 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 Case - AIR 1982, SC 149: 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.

Shiram Food & Fertilizer case AIR (1986) 2 SCC 176 SC 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.

In the case of M.C Mehta V. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471 - In a Public Interest
Litigation 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 India - AIR 1989, SC 2039 :- Supreme Court held in the
Public Interest Litigation 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 India - (1996)5 SCC281 : Public
Interest Litigation 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.
A report entitled "Treat Prisoners Equally HC" published in THE TRIBUNE , Aug 23 Punjab
& Haryana High Court quashed the provisions of jail manual dividing prisoners into A , B &
C classes after holding that there cannot be any classification of convicts on the basis of their
social status, education or habit of living .This is a remarkable ruling given by High Court by
declaring 576-A paragraph of the manual to be " Unconstitutional".

State V. Union Of India - AIR 1996 Cal 181 at 218 : Public Interest Litigation 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 a recent ruling of Supreme
Court on " GROWTH OF SLUMS" in Delhi through Public Interest Litigation initiated by
lawyers Mr. B.L. Wadhera & Mr. Almitra Patel Court held that large area of public land is
covered by the people living in slum area . Departments despite being giving a dig on the
slum clearance, it has been found that more and more slums are coming into existence.
Instead of "Slum Clearance", there is "Slum Creation" in Delhi. As slums tended to increase;
the Court directed the departments to take appropriate action to check the growth of slums
and to create an environment worth for living.

During the last few years, Judicial Activism has opened up a new dimension for the Judicial
process and has given a new hope to the millions who starve for their livelihood. There is no
reason why the Court should not adopt activist approach similar to Court in America , so as to
provide remedial amplitude to the citizens of India.

Supreme Court has now realised its proper role in welfare state and it is using its new strategy
for the development of a whole new corpus of law for effective and purposeful
implementation of Public Interest Litigation. One can simply approach to the Court for the
enforcement of fundamental rights by writing a letter or post card to any Judge. That
particular letters based on true facts and concept will be converted to writ petition. When
Court welcome Public Interest Litigation , its attempt is to endure observance of social and
economic programmes frame for the benefits of have-nots and the handicapped. Public
Interest Litigation has proved a boon for the common men. Public Interest Litigation has set
right a number of wrongs committed by an individual or by society. By relaxing the scope of
Public Interest Litigation, Court has brought legal aid at the doorsteps of the teeming millions
of Indians; which the executive has not been able to do despite a lot of money is being spent
on new legal aid schemes operating at the central and state level. Supreme Court's pivotal
role in expanding the scope of Public Interest Litigation as a counter balance to the lethargy
and inefficiency of the executive is commendable.

Introduction
The Emergency of 1976 marked not just a political watershed in this country, but
a judicial one as well. In the euphoria of the return to democracy and in an
attempt to refurbish its image that had been tarnished by some Emergency
decisions, the Supreme Court of India opened the floodgates to public interest
litigation (PIL). under PIL, courts take up cases that concern not the rights of the
petitioner but of the public at large. In the last two decades, PIL has emerged as
one of the most powerful tools for promoting social justice and for protecting the
rights of the poor.

Among the numerous factors that have contributed to the growth of PIL
in this country, the following deserve special mention:

» The character of the Indian Constitution. Unlike Britain, India has a written
constitution which through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive
Principles of State Policy) provides a framework for regulating relations between
the state and its citizens and between citizens inter-se.

» India has some of the most progressive social legislation to be found anywhere
in the world whether it be relating to bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling,
environmental protection, etc. This has made it easier for the courts to haul up
the executive when it is not performing its duties in ensuring the rights of the
poor as per the law of the land.

» The liberal interpretation of locus standi where any person can apply to the
court on behalf of those who are economically or physically unable to come
before it has helped. Judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto
action based on newspaper articles or letters received

» Although social and economic rights given in the Indian Constitution under Part
IV are not legally enforceable, courts have creatively read these into
fundamental rights thereby making them judicially enforceable. For instance the
"right to life" in Article 21 has been expanded to include right to free legal aid,
right to live with dignity, right to education, right to work, freedom from torture,
barfetters and hand cuffing in prisons, etc.

» Sensitive judges have constantly innovated on the side of the poor. for
instance, in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case in 1983, the Supreme Court put the
burden of proof on the respondent stating it would treat every case of forced
labor as a case of bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the employer.
Similarly in the Asiad workers judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that
anyone getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court
directly without going through the labor commissioner and lower courts

» In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the
necessary evidence, either because it is voluminous or because the parties are
weak socially or economically, courts have appointed commissions to collect
information on facts and present it before the bench.

When and how to File a PIL

1.Make an informed decision to file a case.

2.Consult all affected interest groups who are possible allies.

3.Be careful in filing a case because

i.Litigation can be expensive.
ii.Litigation can be time consuming.
iii.Litigation can take away decision making capability/strength from
communities.
iv.An adverse decision can affect the strength of the movement.
v.Litigation involvement can divert the attention of the community away from
the real issues.

4.If you have taken the decision

i.Collect all the relevant information
ii.Be meticulous in gathering detail for use in the case. If you plan to use
photographs, retain the negatives and take an affidavit from the photographer.
Retain bills.
iii.Write to the relevant authorities and be clear about your demands.
iv.Maintain records in an organized fashion.
v.Consult a lawyer on the choice of forum.
vi.Engage a competent lawyer. If you are handling the matter yourself make sure
you get good legal advice on the drafting.
vii.A PIL can be filed only by a registered organization. If you are unregistered,
please file the PIL in the name of an office bearer/member in his/her personal
capacity.
viii.You may have to issue a legal notice to the concerned parties/authorities
before filing a PIL. Filing a suit against the government would require issuing a
notice to the concerned officer department at least two months prior to filing.

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 in .S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87,
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 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.”

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 (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC 349).

Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay and ors v. M/s Devkala Consultancy
Service and Ors., J. T. 2004 (4) SC 587, held 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”.

In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. And Anr. Vs. C.K. Rajan and Ors, J.T. 2003
(7) S.C. 312, S.C. 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 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 publico 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 by pass 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
(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) 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.

(d) Non-adversarial Litigation

In the words of S. C. 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.

1. Collaborative litigation; and

2. Investigative Litigation

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.

Investigative Litigation: It is investigative litigation because it works on the reports of the

Registrar, District Magistrate, comments of experts, newspapers etc.

(e) Crucial Aspects

The flexibility introduced in the adherence to procedural laws. In Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.,(1985) 2 SCC 431, court rejected the defense of Res
Judicta. Court refused to withdraw the PIL and ordered compensation too. In R.C. Narain v.
State of Bihar, court legislated the rules for the welfare of the persons living in the mental
asylum. 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.

(f) 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, AIR 1987 SC 579, S.C. 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 (Ashok Kumar
Pandey v. State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC 349).

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 (Ashok Kumar Pandey v.
State of W. B., (2004) 3 SCC 349).

(g) Epistolary Jurisdiction

The judicial activism gets its highest bonus when its orders wipe some tears from some eyes.
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.
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 reconceptualised rights provide legal resources
to activate the courts for their enforcement through PIL.
2) By democratization of access to 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 relief’s 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.

Abuses of PIL

Introduction
The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the country has very recently
uncovered its own pitfalls and drawbacks. The genuine causes and cases of public
interest have in fact receded to the background and irresponsible PIL activists all over
the country have started to play a major but not a constructive role in the arena of
litigation. They try to utilise this extraordinary remedy, available at a cheaper cost, as a
substitute for ordinary ones. This mini article briefly narrates the ill effects of the
emerging malady and possible remedies.

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 organised 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 (PIL)-The legal history:

Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL can be broadly defined as litigation in
the interest of that nebulous entity: the
public in general. Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party could personally knock the
doors of justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other person who was not
personally affected could not knock the doors of justice as a proxy for the victim or the
aggrieved party. In other words, only the affected parties had the locus standi (standing
required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non affected persons
had no locus standi to do so. And as a result, there was hardly any link between the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Indian Union and the laws made by the
legislature on the one hand and the vast majority of illiterate citizens on the other.

However, all these scenario gradually changed when the post emergency Supreme Court
tackled the problem of access to justice by people through radical changes and
alterations made in the requirements of locus standi and of party aggrieved. The
splendid efforts of Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer were instrumental of
this juristic revolution of eighties to convert the apex court of India into a Supreme Court
for all Indians. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social
action groups can 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. Further,
public interest cases could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in
private civil litigation.

PIL- A BOON:
1. In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) vigilant citizens of the country can find an inexpensive
legal remedy because there is only a nominal fixed court fee involved in this.
2. Further, through the so-called PIL, the litigants can focus attention on and achieve
results pertaining to larger public issues, especially in the fields of human rights,
consumer welfare and environment.

ABUSE OF PIL:
However, the development of PIL has also uncovered its pitfalls and drawbacks. As a
result, the apex court itself has been compelled to lay down certain guidelines to govern
the management and disposal of PILs. And the abuse of PIL is also increasing alongwith
its extended and multifaceted use.

Of late, many of the PIL activists in the country have found the PIL as a handy tool of
harassment since frivolous cases could be filed without investment of heavy court fees
as required in private civil litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the victims
of stay orders obtained in the so-called PILs.

Just as a weapon meant for defence can be used equally effectively for offence, the
lowering of the locus standi requirement has permitted privately motivated interests to
pose as public interests. The abuse of PIL has become more rampant than its use and
genuine causes either receded to the background or began to be viewed with the
suspicion generated by spurious causes mooted by privately motivated interests in the
disguise of the so-called public interests.

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

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

At present, the court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. But, it is
not every letter which may be treated as a writ petition by the court. The court would be
justified in treating the letter as a writ petition only in the following cases-
(i) It is only where the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person or
(ii) a public spirited individual or
(iii) a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or the legal rights of a
person in custody or of a class or group of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or
socially or economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach the court for
redress.

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

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

Conclusion:
Public Interest Litigants, all over the country, have not taken very kindly to such court
decisions. They do fear 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. It is also notable here that even the
Consumers Protection Act, 1986 has been amended to provide compensation to opposite
parties in cases of frivolous complaints made by consumers. In any way, PIL now does
require a complete rethink and restructuring. Anyway, overuse and abuse of PIL can only
make it stale and ineffective. 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.

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs State Of

Maharashtra & Ors on 14 December, 2004
CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (civil) 26269 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware

RESPONDENT:

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/12/2004

BENCH:

ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

(Arising out of CC No. 11374 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

This case is a sad reflection on members of the legal profession and is almost a black spot on
the noble profession. The petitioner who belongs to this profession filed a petition styled as
"Public Interest Litigation" before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. By the
impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed it holding that there was no public interest
involved and in fact the petitioner had resorted to black mailing respondent nos. 6 and 7 and
was caught red handed accepting "black mailing" money. The High Court also noticed that
the allegations of unauthorized constructions made in the petition were also not true.

Cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) which was levied, was directed to be
paid to the affected respondent nos. 6 and 7 before the High Court.

It is, in fact, a black day for the black robed professionals, if the allegation, as found by the
High Court to be true and which presently appear to be the subject matter of further
proceedings in a criminal case, are true. This will leave the members of the legal profession
black faced for the black deed of the petitioner who may be as the High Court found a black
sheep in the profession. Though the petition filed by the petitioner carried the attractive brand
name of "Public Interest Litigation", the least that can be said is that it smacks of every thing
what the Public Interest Litigation should not be.

When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing
but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we
grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue
regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an
important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or
"private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income
litigation". The High Court has found that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If not
properly regulated and abuse averted, it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to release
vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant borne out of wishful
thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his or their
personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should
not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary
jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide 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. These aspects
were highlighted by this Court in The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305) and
Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994 Supp (2) SCC 116). A writ
petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean
hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean
objective. (See Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 852) and K.R. Srinivas
v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620).

It is necessary to take note of the meaning of expression 'public interest litigation'. In Stroud's
Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), 'Public Interest' is defined thus:

"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is
interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a
class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected."

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows:

"Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or

liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be
affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by

national government...."

In Janata Dal case (supra) this Court considered the scope of public interest litigation. In para
52 of the said judgment, after considering what is public interest, has laid down as follows:

"The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in
a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the
expression "PIL" means the 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 the

community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are

affected."

In paras 60, 61 and 62 of the said judgment, it was pointed out as follows:
"Be that as it may, it is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of a party to
a

litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in
private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
ascertained at the threshold."

In para 96 of the said judgment, it has further been pointed out as follows:

"While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their
command about the importance and significance of this newly

developed doctrine of PIL, it has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe
warning that Courts should not allow its process to be abused by a mere busy body or a
meddlesome interloper or

wayfarer or officious intervener without any

interest or concern except for personal gain or

private profit or other oblique consideration."

In subsequent paras of the said judgment, it was observed as follows:

"It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the

proceeding of PIL will alone have as locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the
tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of

their fundamental rights, but not a person for

personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a
vexatious petition under the colour of PIL, brought before the Court for vindicating any
personal grievance,

deserves rejection at the threshold".

Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors

on 9 January, 1991

PETITIONER:

SUBHASH KUMAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1991

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

OJHA, N.D. (J)

CITATION:

1991 AIR 420 1991 SCR (1) 5

1991 SCC (1) 598 JT 1991 (1) 77

1991 SCALE (1)8

ACT:

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974: Sections 17, 24, 25 and 26.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 21-Right to live includes right to enjoyment of pollution
free water and air- A citizen has a right to invoke Article 32 for removing pollution.

Article 32- Writ petition in public interest-Allegation that West Bokaro Collieries and Tata
Iron and Steel Company are polluting the river Bokaro by discharging slurry from their
washeries into the river-No material to substantiate the allegations-Held petition is not in
public interest but for personal interest.

Public Interest Litigation-Should be resorted to by a person genuinely interested in the

protection of society- Personal interest cannot be enforced in the garb of public interest
litigation-Entertainment of petitions satisfying personal grudge is abuse of process of the
Court Duty of the court is to discourage such petitions.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court by way of public interest litigation alleging
that the respondents, West Bokaro Collieries and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) were
polluting the river Bokaro by discharging surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry as
effluent from their washeries into river making the river water unfit for drinking and
irrigation purposes thereby causing risk to the health of the people; the State of Bihar and the
State Pollution Control Board have failed to take appropriate steps for prevention of the
pollution and instead the State of Bihar has granted leases on payment of royalty to various
persons for collection of slurry. Accordingly the petitioner prayed for directions to the
respondents to take immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of the river and to take legal
action against TISCO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The
petitioner also claimed interim relief from this Court that he should be permitted to collect
sludge/slurry flowing out of washeries of the respondents. 6

The respondents contested the petition denying the petitioner's allegations. Bihar State
Pollution Board asserted that directions have been issued to the Bokaro Collieries to take
effective steps for improving the quality of the effluent going into the river Bokaro and that
the TISCO Company has been granted permission to discharge their effluents from their
outlets in accordance with sections 25 and 26 of the 1974 Act. On behalf of TISCO and the
Bokaro Collieries it was contended that all effective steps have been taken to prevent the
pollution and they have complied with the instructions of the State Pollution Board. By an
order dated 13.12.1990, this Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

Giving reasons for dismissal of the petition, this Court,

HELD: 1. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by

the Apex Court. It provides for an extra-ordinary remedy to safeguard the fundamental rights
of a citizen. Right to life 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 right to
have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air
which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A petition under Article 32 for the prevention
of pollution is maintainable at the instance of affected persons or even by a group of social
workers or journalists. But recourse to proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution should
be taken by person genuinely interested in the protection of society on behalf of the
community. Public interest litigation cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to
satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32 are entertained
it would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine
petitioners from this Court. Personal interest cannot be enforced through the process of this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb of a public interest litigation. Public
interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of
fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their
fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. A person
invoking the jurisdiction of this Curt under Article 32 must approach this Court for the
vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not for the purpose of
vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty of this Court to

discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted
by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for
personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation. [13C-H; 14A]

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR 67; Sachindanand Pandey v. State
of West Begal, [1987] 2 SCC 295; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251; Chetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P.
& Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 449, referred to.

2. The present petition is not filed in public interest instead the petition has been made by the
petitioner in his own interest. Infact there is intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the
primary purpose of filing this petition is not to serve any public interest instead it is in self-
interest. The petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondents for the last several
years. With the passage of time he wanted more and more slurry but the Company refused to
accept his request. He removed the Company's slurry in an unauthorised manner for which
criminal cases are pending against him and his brother. Since the respondent company
refused to sell additional slurry he entertained a grudge against the company and in order to
feed fat his personal grudge he resorted to several proceedings against the company including
the present one. The prayer for the interim relief made by the petitioner i.e. permitting him to
arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing out of the washeries of the respondents with a direction to
the State of Bihar, its officers and other authorities for not preventing him from collecting the
sludge/slurry and transporting the same also collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the
same clearly indicates that he is interested in collecting the slurry and transporting the same
for the purposes of his business. Therefore, there is no good reason to accept the petitioner's
allegation that the water of the river Bokaro is being polluted by the discharge of sludge or
slurry into it form the washeries of the respondent-company. On the other hand it is evident
from records that the State Pollution Control Board has taken effective steps to check the
pollution. [14B;12F-G]

Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd. & etc. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1986
Patna 242; Bharat Cokin Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1990] 3 SCR 744= Judgments
Today, vol. 3, 1990 SCC 533, referred to.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 381 of 1998.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). S.K. Sinha for the Petitioner.

D. Goburdhan, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.K. Lahiri, Ms. Lira Goswami and D.N. Misra for the
Respondents.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

SINGH,J. We heard the arguments in detail on 13.12. 1990 and dismissed the petition with
costs amounting to Rs. 5,000 with the direction that the reasons shall be delivered later on.
We are, accordingly, delivering our reasons. This petition is under Article 32 of the
Constitution by Subhash Kumar for the issue of a writ or direction directing the director of
Collieries, West Bokaro Collieries at Ghatotand, District Hazaribagh in the State of Bihar and
the Tata from & Steel Co. Ltd. to stop forthwith discharge of slurry/sludge from its washeries
at Ghatotand in the District of Hazaribagh into Bokaro river. This petition is by way of public
interest litigation for preventing the pollution of the Bokaro river water from the sludge/slurry
discharged form the washeries of the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The petitioner has alleged
that the Parliament has enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') providing for the prevention and control of water
pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment
of Board for the prevention and control of water pollution. Under the provisions of the Act
the State Pollution Control Board constituted to carry out functions prescribed under Section
17 of the Act which among other things provide that the Board shall inspect sewage or trade
effluents and plants for the treatment of sewage and trade effluents and to review plans,
specifications or other data set up for the treatment of water and to lay down standards to be
complied with by the persons while causing discharge of sewage or sullage. Section 24 of the
Act provides that no person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious or
polluting matter to enter into any stream or well, which may lead to a substantial aggravation
of pollution. The petitioner has asserted that Tata Iron and Steel Co-respondent No.5 carries
on mining operation in coal mines/washeries in the town of Jamshedpur. These coal mines
and collieries are known as West Bokaro Collieries and the Collieries have two coal
washeries where the coal after its extraction from the mines is brought and broken into
graded pieces and there-

after it is processed for the purpose of reducing its ash contents. A chemical process is carried
out which is known as `froth floatation process'. Under this process the graded coal is mixed
with diesel oil, pine oil and many other chemical ingredients and thereafter it is washed with
the lacs of gallons of water. The end water is washed coal with reduced quantity of ash
content fit for high graded metallurgical process for the purposes of manufacture of steel. In
the process of washing large quantity of water is discharged through pipes which carry the
discharged water to storage ponds constructed for the purpose of retaining the slurry. Along
with the discharged water, small particles of coal are carried away to the pond where the coal
particles settle down on the surface of the pond, and the same is collected after the pond is
de-watered. The coal particles which are carried away by the water is called the slurry which
is ash free, it contains fine quality of coal which is used as fuel.

The petitioner has alleged that the surplus waste in the form of sludge/slurry is discharged as
an effluent from the washeries into the Bokaro river which gets deposited in the bed of the
river and it also gets settled on land including the petitioner's land bearing Plot No.170. He
was further alleged that the sludge or slurry which gets deposited on the agricultural land, is
absorbed by the land leaving on the top a fine carbonaceous product or film on the soil, which
adversely affects the fertility of the land. The petitioner has further alleged that the effluent in
the shape of slurry is flown into the Bokaro river which is carried out by the river water to the
distant places polluting the river water as a result of which the river water is not fit for
drinking purposes nor it is fit for irrigation purposes. The continuous discharge of slurry in
heavy quantity by the Tata Iron & Steel Co. from its washeries posing risks to the health of
people living in the surrounding areas and as a result of such discharge the problem of pure
drinking water has became acute. The petitioner has asserted that inspite of several
representations, the State of Bihar and State Pollution Control Board have failed to take any
action against the Company instead they have permitted the pollution of the river water. He
has further averred that the State of Bihar instead of taking any action against the Company
has been granting leases on payment of royalty to various persons for the collection of slurry.
He has, accordingly, claimed relief for issue of direction directing the respondents which
include the State of Bihar, the Bihar Pollution Control Board, Union of India and Tata Iron &
Steel Co. to take immediate steps prohibiting the pollution of Bokaro river water from the
discharge of slurry into the Bokaro river and to take further action under provisions of the Act
against the Tata Iron & Steel Co.

10
The respondents have contested the petition and counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf
of the respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5-State of Bihar, State Pollution Board, Directors of
Collieries and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the
respondents, the petitioner's main allegation that the sludge/slurry is being discharged into the
river Bokaro causing pollution to the water and the land and that the Bihar State Pollution
Board has not taken steps to prevent the same is denied. In the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Board it is asserted that the Tata Iron & Steel Co. operates
open case and underground mining. The Company in accordance to Sections 25 and 26 of the
Water (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 applied for sanction from the Board of
discharge their effluent from their outlets. The Board before granting sanction analysed their
effluent which was being watched constantly and monitored to see that the discharges does
not affect the water quality of the Bokaro river adversely. In order to prevent the pollution the
Board issued direction to the Director of the Collieries to take effective steps for improving
the quality of the effluent going into the Bokaro river. The State Pollution Board imposed
conditions requiring the Company to construct two settling tanks for settlement of solids and
rewashing the same. The Board directed for the regular samples being taken and tested for
suspended solids and for the communication of the results of the tests to the Board each
month. The State Board has asserted that the Company has constructed four ponds ensuring
more storing capacity of effluent. The Pollution Board has been monitoring the effluent. It is
further stated that on the receipt of the notice of the instant writ petition the Board carried out
an inspection of the settling tanks regarding the treatment of the effluent from the washeries
on 20th June, 1988. On inspection it was found that all the four settling tanks had already
been completed and work for further strengthening of the embankment of the tanks was in
progress, and there was no discharge of effluent from the washeries into river Bokaro except
that there was negligible seepage from the embankment. It is further stated that the Board
considered all the aspects and for further improvement it directed the management of the
collieries for removal of the settle slurry from the tanks. The Board has directed that the
washeries shall perform desludging of the settling tanks at regular intervals to achieve the
proper required retention time for the separation of solids and to achieve discharge of
effluents within the standards prescribed by the Board. It is further asserted that at present
there is no discharge from any of the tanks of the Bokaro river and there is no question of
pollution of the river water of affecting the fertility of land. In their affidavits files on behalf
of the respondent-

11

Nos. 4 and 5, they have also denied the allegations made in the petition. They have asserted
that the effective steps have been taken to prevent the flow of the water discharge from the
washeries into the river Bokaro. it is stated that infact river Bokaro remains dry during 9
months in a year and the question of pollution of water by discharge of slurry into the river
does not arise. However, the management of the washeries have constructed from different
ponds to store the slurry. The slurry which settles in the pounds is collected for sale. The
slurry contains highly carbonaceous materials and it is considered very valuable for the
purpose of fuel as the ash contents are almost nil in the coal particles found in the slurry.
Since, it has high market value, the Company would not like it to go in the river water. The
Company has taken effective steps to ascertain that no slurry escapes from its ponds at the
slurry is highly valuable. The Company has been following the directions issued by the State
Pollution Control Board constituted under the 1974 Act.
On the facts as appearing from the pleadings and the specific averments contained in the
counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board of Bihar, prima facie we
do not find any good reason to accept the petitioner's allegation that the water of the river
Bokaro is being polluted by the discharged of sludge or slurry into it from the washeries of
the respondent-company. On the other hand we find that the State Pollution Control Board
has taken effective steps to check the pollution. We do not consider it necessary to delve into
greater detail as the present petition does not appear to have been filed in public interest
instead the petition has been made by the petitioner in his own interest.

On a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it appears
that the petitioner has been purchasing slurry from the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the last
several years. With the passage of time he wanted more and more slurry, but the respondent-
company refused to accept his request. The petitioner is an influential businessman, he had
obtained a licence for coal trading, he tried to put pressure through various sources on the
respondent-company for supplying him more quantity of slurry but when the Company
refused to succumb to the pressure, he started harassing the Company. He removed the
Company's slurry in an unauthorised manner for which a Criminal Case No., 173 of 1987
under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner and Pradip Kumar his brother at Police
Station Mandu, which is pending before-

12

the Sub-Judge, Hazaribagh. One Shri Jugal Kishore Jayaswal also filed a criminal complaint
under Section 379 and 411 of the IPC against the petitioner and his brother Pradip Kumar in
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hazaribagh, which is also pending before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class Hazaribagh. The petitioner initiated several
proceedings before the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the constitution for
permitting him to collect slurry from the Raiyati land. These petitions were dismissed on the
ground of existence of dispute relating to the title of the land. The petitioner filed a writ
petition C.W.J.C. No. 887 of 199o in the High Court of Patna for taking action against the
Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for implementing the Full Bench judgment of the Patna
High Court in Kundori Labours Cooperative Society Ltd. & etc. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors.,
AIR 1986 Patna 242 wherein it was held that the slurry was neither coal nor mineral instead it
was an industrial waste of coal mine, not subject to the provisions of the Mines and Mineral
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. Consequently the collection of slurry which
escaped from the washeries could be settled by the State Government with any person
without obtaining the sanction of the Central Government. The petitioner has been
contending before the High Court that the slurry which was discharged from washeries did
not belong to the Company and he was entitled to collect the same. Since the respondent-
company prevented the petitioner from collecting slurry from its land and as it further refused
to sell any additional quantity of slurry to him, he entertained grudge against the respondent-
company. In order to feed fat his personal grudge he has taken several proceedings against
the respondent-company including the present proceedings. These facts are quite apparent
from the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed before the Court. Infact,there is
intrinsic evidence in the petition itself that the primary purpose of filling this petition is not to
serve any public interest instead it is in self-interest as would be clear from the prayer made
by the petitioner in the interim stay application. The petitioner claim interim relief from this
Court permitting him to arrest/collect sludge/slurry flowing out of the washeries of the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and with a direction to the State of Bihar, its officers and other
authorities for not preventing him from collecting the sludge/slurry and transporting the
same. The prayer for the interim relief made by the petitioner clearly indicates that he is
interested in collecting the slurry and transporting the same for the purposes of his business.
As already state a Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the slurry was not coal and
the provisions of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 were not
applicable, the State Government was tree to settle the same-

13

and the Tata Steel & Iron Co. had no right to collect the slurry which escaped from its
washeries. The respondent-company filed an appeal before this Court. During the pendency
of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner filed the present petition. The appeal preferred by the
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was allowed by this Court and
judgment of Patna High Court was set aside. The judgment of this Court is reported in
Judgments today Vol. 3 1990 SC 533 wherein it has been held that the slurry/coal deposited
on any and continues to be coal and the State Government has no authority in law to deal
with the same and the slurry deposited on the Company's land belongs to the Company and
no other person had authority to collect the same. Article 32 is designed for the enforcement
of Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary
procedure to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Right to live is a fundamental
right under Art 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 right to have recourse to Art, 32 of the Constitution for
removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life. A
petition under Art. 32 for the prevention of pollution is maintainable at the instance of
affected persons or even by a group of social workers or journalists. But recourse to
preceeding under Art. 32 of the Constitution should be taken by a person genuinely interested
in the protection of society on behalf of the community. Public interest litigation cannot be
invoked by a person or body or person to satisfy his or its personal grudge and enmity. if such
petitions under Article 32, are entertained it would amount to abuse of process of the Court,
preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioner from this Court. Personal interest
cannot be enforced through the process of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution in the
garb of a public interest litigation. Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for
vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which
are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or
ignorance of law. A person invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 must
approach this Court for the vindication of the fundamental rights of affected persons and not
for the purpose of vindication of his personal grudge or enmity. It is duty of this Court to
discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted
by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for personal
matters under the garb-

14

of the public interest litigation see Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, [1984] 2 SCR
67; Pandey v. State of West Bengal, [1987] 2 SCC 295 at 331; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCC 251 and Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti
Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 449.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that this petition has been filed not in
any public interest but for the petitioner's personal interest and for these reasons we dismissed
the same and directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 5,000 as costs. These costs are to be
paid to the respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5.

T.N.A. Petitions dismissed