Public-Interest Litigation

Public-Interest Litigation (PIL, or ) is litigation for the protection of

the public interest. In Indian law, Article 32 of the Indian constitution contains a tool
which directly joins the public with judiciary. A PIL may be introduced in a court of law by
the court itself (suo motu), rather than the aggrieved party or another third party. For the
exercise of the court's jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the victim of the violation of his
or her rights to personally approach the court. In a PIL, the right to file suit is given to a
member of the public by the courts through judicial activism. The member of the public
may be a non-governmental organization (NGO), an institution or an individual.
TheSupreme Court of India, rejecting the criticism of judicial activism, has stated that
the judiciary has stepped in to give direction because due to executive inaction, the laws
enacted by Parliament and the state legislatures for the poor since independence have
not been properly implemented.

History
In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani of supreme court of India had filed a petition
regarding the condition of the prisoners detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were
pending in the court. The special thing about this petiton was that it was not filed by any
single prisoner, rather it was filed by various prisoners of the Bihar jail. The case got
filed in theSupreme Court before the bench headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. This
petition was filed by the name of the prisoner, Husnara Khatoon, hence the petition
came to be known asHusnara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar. In this case, the Supreme
Court upheld that the prisoners should get benefit of free legal aid and fast hearing.
Because of this case 40,000 prisoners, whose suits were pending in the court, were
released from the jail. There after many cases like this have registered in the supreme
court.
The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is in consonance with the principles
enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social
justice with the help of law. Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach
the courts for justice. After the emergency era the high court reached out to the people,
devising a means for any person of the public (or an NGO) to approach the court
seeking legal remedy in cases where the public interest is at stake. Justice P. N.
Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in
court. Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as a usual legal case; there have been

instances when letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been taken up as
PILs and heard.
The Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi seeking
enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who were
living in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, 1982
(2) SCC 583 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 511 : AIR 1983 SC 339, the court treated a letter
addressed to a judge of the court by the Free Legal Aid Committee
in Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy through its President
v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486 : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74 : 1995 (3) SCC
743 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court entertained a letter from
Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to
a judge of the court alleging human-rights violations of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act (TADA) detainees; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India.

Frivolous PILs
PIL is a rule of declared law by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing
the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for
the public interest and not as a frivolous litigation for pecuniary gain. The 38th Chief
Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial fines would be imposed on
litigants filing frivolous PILs. His statement was widely welcomed, because the instance
of frivolous PILs for pecuniary interest has increased; a bench of the high court has also
expressed concern over the misuse of PILs. The bench has issued a set of guidelines it
wanted all courts in the country to observe when entertaining PILs.
In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over
the misuse of PILs: Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs
too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had
some balance restored in recent times.[citation needed] In what may be a tool against frivolous
PILs, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice is preparing a law regulating PILs. Helping
the ministry are former Chief Justice of India P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna
Iyer, who pioneered PIL.
The judgment said: This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game
of chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot
prevaricate and take inconsistent positions. Since the Amar Singh petition was vague,

not in conformance with the rules of procedure and contained inconsistencies, the court
did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). One positive outcome of
the case was the courts request that the government frame certain statutory guidelines
to prevent interception of telephone conversation on unauthorised requests. In this
case, Reliance Communications acted upon a forged request from police.
In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation
in business conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the
closure of asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high
court dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial
groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos substitutes. A similar petition
was then submitted to the Supreme Court. The plea was dismissed, and the plaintiff was
assessed a fine of 100,000. The judgment read: The petition lacks bona fide and in
fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in
banning of the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was
made by it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing
the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute
for asbestos. Thus it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial
imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of court.
The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to punish the petitioners
under the Contempt of Courts Act; it must ensure that such unscrupulous and
undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the
valuable time of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice
delivery system.
By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an
approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis
of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies, a bench of
Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment. The bench
overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, which set aside the
services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed by the Tirumala
Venkateswara Temple. The high courts decision concerned a public-interest petition
filed by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was
involved in the loss of 300 gold dollars from the temple and should not continue in
office. The Supreme Court found that the high court decided against the accused with
little information about Reddy himself.

The parameters within which PILs can be entertained have been laid down. The
credentials, the motive and the objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and
patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold,
the judgment stated. As for why it is skeptical about a large number of PILs, the bench
spoke for the Supreme Court when it said that the judiciary has to be extremely careful
to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested
interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. This Court (Supreme Court of India) must
not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who
monitor at times from behind.

PIL results study

According to a controversial study by social scientist Hans Dembowski, PIL has been
successful in making official authorities accountable to NGOs. While Dembowski also
found some effect at the grassroots level, PIL cases dealing with major environmental
grievances in the Kolkata urban agglomeration did not tackle underlying problems (such
as inadequate town planning). Dembowski's book Taking the State to Court - Public
Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere in Metropolitan India was originally published
by Oxford University Press in 2001. The publisher, however, discontinued distribution
because of contempt of court proceedings initiated by the Calcutta High Court. The
author (who claimed he was never officially notified by the court) has republished the
book online with German NGO Asia House.

Further considerations
A bench consisting of Justices G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly pointed out that
laws enacted for achieving the goals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution were
inadequate; the benefits of welfare measures embodied in the legislation had not
reached millions of poor people, and efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor did
not yield the desired results.
Writing the judgment in a case concerning sewage workers, Justice Singhvi stated: The
most unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of
the state i.e., the judiciary issues directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life,
and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty,
illiteracy and ignorance, and directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted
by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by
raising the bogey of judicial activism or overreach.[7]

The bench clarified that it was necessary to erase the impression on some that the
superior courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for the poor (who could not seek protection
of their rights), exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction. The judges said it
was the duty of the judiciary (like that of the legislative and executive constituents of the
state) to protect the rights of every citizen and ensure that all lived with dignity.
Such cases may be filed in the public interest when victims lack the capability to
commence litigation, or their freedom to petition the court has been encroached. The
court may proceed suo motu, or cases can proceed on the petition of an individual or
group. Courts may also proceed on the basis of letters written to them, or newspaper
reports.