PIL in broad terms means litigation filed in a court of law for the protection of “Public Interest”

on the wide variety of subjects concerning citizens.

In Indian law, public interest litigation means litigation for the protection of the public interest.
It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by
any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, that the
person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court.
Public interest litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism.

Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence
litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can
itself take cognisance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the petition
of any public-spirited individual.

Origin of public interest litigation

Prior to the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. However, post
1980s and after the emergency era, the apex court decided to reach out to the people and hence it
devised an innovative way wherein a person or a civil society group could approach the supreme
court seeking legal remedies in cases where public interest is at stake. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PIL's in the court.1 Filing a PIL
is not as cumbersome as any other legal case and there have been instances when even letters and
telegrams addressed to the court have been taken up as PIL's and heard by the court.

The history of public interest litigation

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

1
PIL A Boon Or A Bane
victim or the aggrieved party. As a result, there was hardly any link between the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the laws made by the legislature on the one hand and
the vast majority of illiterate citizens on the other.

However, this entire 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. 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.

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 were very little organized efforts or attempts to
take up wider issues that affected classes of consumers or the general public at large.

However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the
concept of public interest litigation (PIL).

The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the country has, however, 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 utilize this
extraordinary remedy, available at a cheaper cost, as a substitute for ordinary ones.

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 apex court itself has been compelled to lay down certain guidelines to govern the
management and disposal of PILs.
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.

Necessary Steps to be taken

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 the 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.

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 the 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. It is
however, obvious that 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.

What is Public Interest Litigation

Introduction
Though the Constitution of India guarantees equal rights to all citizens, irrespective of race,
gender, religion, and other considerations, and the "directive principles of state policy" as stated
in the Constitution obligate the Government to provide to all citizens a minimum standard of
living, the promise has not been fulfilled. The greater majority of the Indian people have no
assurance of two nutritious meals a day, safety of employment, safe and clean housing, or such
level of education as would make it possible for them to understand their constitutional rights
and obligations. Indian newspapers abound in stories of the exploitation - by landlords, factory
owners, businessmen, and the state's own functionaries, such as police and revenue officials - of
children, women, villagers, the poor, and the working class.

Though India's higher courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court have often been sensitive to
the grim social realities, and have on occasion given relief to the oppressed, the poor do not have
the capacity to represent themselves, or to take advantage of progressive legislation. In 1982, the
Supreme Court conceded that unusual measures were warranted to enable people the full
realization of not merely their civil and political rights, but the enjoyment of economic, social,
and cultural rights, and in its far- reaching decision in the case of PUDR [People's Union for
Democratic Rights] vs. Union of India 2 it recognised that a third party could directly petition,
whether through a letter or other means, the Court and seek its intervention in a matter where
another party's fundamental rights were being violated. In this case, adverting to the
Constitutional prohibition on "begar", or forced labor and traffic in human beings, PUDR
submitted that workers contracted to build the large sports complex at the Asian Game Village in
Delhi were being exploited. PUDR asked the Court to recognize that "begar" was far more than
compelling someone to work against his or her will, and that work under exploitative and
grotesquely humiliating conditions, or work that was not even compensated by prescribed
minimum wages, was violative of fundamental rights. As the Supreme Court noted, The 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 prostituted by the vested interests for protecting and upholding
the status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have
civil and political rights and rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on
paper and not in reality. If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to
carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the

2
1982 (2) S.C.C. 253
chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living
through their sweat and toil?

Thus the court was willing to acknowledge that it had a mandate to advance the rights of the
disadvantaged and poor, though this might be at the behest of individuals or groups who
themselves claimed no disability. Such litigation, termed Public Interest Litigation or Social
Action Litigation by its foremost advocate, Professor Upendra Baxi, has given the court
"epistolary jurisdiction".

Meaning of 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 brunt 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 3-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 - 4 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

3
A.I.R.. 1982 , S C 1473.
4
AIR 1982, SC 149:
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 5- 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 India6- 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 India7- 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 India8- 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

5
AIR (1986) 2 SCC 176 SC
6
1988 1 SCC 471
7
AIR 1989, SC 2039
8
(1996)5 SCC281
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 India9- 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

9
AIR 1996 Cal 181 at 218
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.

Amend constitution for public interest litigation

District courts should be empowered to initiate suo moto PILs in public interest.

A public interest litigation (PIL) can be filed in any high court or directly in the supreme court. It
is not necessary that the petitioner has suffered some injury on his own or has had personal
grievance to litigate. The PIL is a right given to the socially conscious member or a public
spirited NGO to espouse a public cause by seeking judicial means for redressal of public injury.
Such injury may arise from breach of public duty or due to a violation of some provision of the
constitution. The PIL is the device by which public participation in judicial review of
administrative action is assured. It has the effect of making the judicial process little more
democratic.

The Bombay High Court created history by initiating a PIL case suo moto on the basis of a series
of newsletters exposing corruption in the Maharashtra government’s transport department. High
courts in other states are also expected to take note of such issues of public interest and suo moto
initiate PILs.
A constitutional amendment is necessary so that even district courts are allowed to conduct cases
under PILs. This is because most of the national newspapers have spread over regions and
districts with their editions and more public grievances are reported by way of news and
investigative newsletters. When the constitutional provision was made at the initial stage, most
of the national newspapers were based in state capitals and it was quite reasonable that high
courts were expected to consider cases for PIL only on the basis of news reports published in
them.

Newspaper network
But during the subsequent period newspapers’ network is so widespread that almost every
district has its own newspaper and that too equipped with new modern machinery and expertise
so much so that they are almost competing with regional and national newspapers. Most of the
national newspapers are published in English or Hindi while regional newspapers are published
in the respective regional languages. Even national and regional newspapers have been
publishing their regional and district editions and are covering various issues with in-depth
analysis and investigative penetration. These editions are almost equal to the state capital-based
dailies and periodicals and are now gaining the same status which they have in state capitals.
Even original district newspapers have geared up to compete with the new editions of the state-
based dailies. District newspapers and editions are concentrating on major issues which are in
public interest.

Delay and corruption in administration, injustice done to people in general and neglected
families in particular, economic crimes which harass people and dupe them, irregularities in
nationalised and co-operative banking sector, farmers plight and hoarding of essential
commodities by middlemen, failure of decentralised panchayat raj system due to non-cooperative
attitude of the bureaucracy and similar variety of issues are periodically covered in these
newspapers. It is therefore necessary that district courts should be empowered to initiate suo
moto PILs in public interest.
While district courts are competent enough to hear PIL cases, advocates or members of the
district bar associations are also well-equipped with legal acumen and knowledge so much so
that they will conduct the argumentative aspect of such cases with expertise and ease which is
seen in high courts. It is therefore high time that necessary amendments are made in the
constitution for empowering the district courts to hear PIL either initiated by citizens or by courts
by way of suo moto action.

For an amendment, both the Union and state governments should take the lead and MLAs and
MPs of all political parties should take initiative in the matter. State assemblies may demand
amendment by resolution while parliament will respond to the demand and pass the amendment
unanimously. This is because this amendment is not based on any controversial issue or it may
not trigger any controversy as this is purely in public interest.
Once district courts are empowered to hear PILs, it will create an atmosphere conducive to legal
remedies for various issues which are brought on surface by news reports in district newspapers
which are on par and in some respect even better as compared to regional and national
newspapers whose editions are also brought out at district places.
Even some exposures having nationwide significance go to the credit of such district editions and
if district and sessions courts are given the power to proceed with suo moto cases against the
erring and corrupt administration; justice under the PIL will be available to the aggrieved people
in small cities and adjacent rural areas of a vast country like India.

Concluding remarks: Balancing a double-edged Sword

The power of the Court to entertain any circumstance that may hinder societal growth, or may
cause hardship to a class of individuals is not uninhibited. It is carefully regulated with tight
reins, and cases of public interest are taken up only after rigorous scrutiny. For instance, in a case
wherein a challenge was made to the Government of India’s telecommunication policy, the
Supreme Court refused to entertain the matter on the ground that it purely concerned a question
of policy. Similarly, public interest litigations that have sought to prohibit the sale of liquor or
the recognition of a particular language as a national language, or the introduction of a uniform
civil code, have been rejected on the ground that these were matters of policy and were beyond
the ambit of judicial scrutiny. The need for deference to the other wings of government in respect
of questions of policy was clearly expressed by Justice R.S. Pathak in the following words:
“Where the Court embarks upon affirmative action in the attempt to remedy a constitutional
imbalance within the social order, few critics will find fault with it so long as it confines itself
to the scope of its legitimate authority. But there is always the possibility in public interest
litigation, of succumbing to the temptation of crossing into territory which properly pertains to
the legislature or to the executive government… In the process of correcting executive error or
removing legislative omission the Court can so easily find itself involved in policy making of a
quality and to a degree characteristic of political authority, and indeed run the risk of being
mistaken for one.”10

10
Cited from (1984) 3 SCC 161, at p. 232
 The Court has refused to entertain cases that are ‘private interest’ litigations disguised as
‘public interest’ litigations. It has also refused to interfere with convictions in criminal cases. In a
case where directions were sought from the Supreme Court to the Central Government to
preserve and protect certain temples, the said request was rejected. The Court stated: “The
matter is eminently one for appropriate evaluation and action by the executive, and may not
have an adjudicative disposition or judicially manageable standards as the pleadings now
stand.”’
At the time of admitting matters in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Courts
have to carefully consider whether or not they are overstepping their domain. Upon considering
the issues at hand, they must then consider whether the orders they intend to pass can be
realistically implemented. Judges must also be attuned to the fact that inconsistencies in the
observations made by different Courts with respect to the same set of issues, can add to
administrative difficulties. There is also a need to keep a watch on the abuse of process by
litigants so as to avoid a situation where such cases occupy a disproportionate extent of the
Courts’ working time. Justice S.P. Barucha has expressed the need for caution in the following
words:
“This court must refrain from passing orders that cannot be enforced, whatever the
fundamental right may be and however good the cause. It serves no purpose to issue some
high profile mandamus or declaration that can remain only on paper. It is counterproductive
to have people say ‘The Supreme Court has not been able to do anything’ or worse. It is of
cardinal importance to the confidence that people have in the Court that its orders are
implicitly and promptly obeyed and is, therefore, of cardinal importance that orders that are
incapable of obedience and enforcement are not made.” 11

In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.12 the following observations

were made with the objective of streamlining the institution of PILs:
“When a petition is filed as a public litigation … the Court must satisfy itself that the
party which has brought the litigation is litigating bona fide for public good. The public
interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends of a third party or of

11
Cited from: Ashok Desai & S. Muralidhar, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems’ in B.N. Kirpal et.
al. (eds.), Supreme but not infallible (OUP, 2000) 159-192, at p. 182
12
(1999) 1 SCC 492
the party bringing the petition … Even when a public interest litigation is entertained, the
Court must be careful to weigh conflicting public interest before intervening.”
It is evident that some instances require courts to draw a balance between the competing
interests of different sections, each of whom may articulate their claims as those grounded in
public interest. It is in this regard that the Courts engage in a process that seeks to build a
consensus among these sections. The device of Public Interest Litigation may have its detractors,
but it has played an invaluable role in advancing our constitutional philosophy of social
transformation and improving access to justice.