PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: AN EXPRESSION OF VOICE FOR THE
SUFFERERS OF SILENCE.
Abstract
Public Interest Litigation also popular by the name of Social Action Litigation or Class
Litigation refers to a legal action, initiated before the court of law for the enforcement of
interest of public. It is a weapon by which poor, helpless or disabled seek judicial redress
by filing an application to the High Court under Article 226 or Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The concept is specie, of the epistolary jurisdiction.
Public interest is not a characteristic of adversary litigation. Public interest litigation is a
pro bono publico striking the conscience of the judiciary. Judiciary must be dynamic
enough to interfere on matters resulting from the lapse of constitutional or statutory duties
on part of the government. Moreover, every boon accompanies bane, thereby strict actions
must result against the abusive conduct of those initiating frivolous public interest
litigations. Public interest litigation is a blessing to the downtrodden, opressesed and
weaker sections of the society. ‘Interest must be material or pecuniary interest to the public
and not mere interest by way of curiosity’. Any public spirited person or association or
group of such persons who have no personal interest in the matter, acting bonafide can file
public interest litigation.
1. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: MEANING, CONCEPT AND
DEFINITONS.
Many steps have been taken in the past and many more continue to be implemented for the
benefits of the underprivileged and oppressed classes, whereby public interest litigation
acts as an instrument of social change and propels the representation of disadvantaged in
the court of justice. Public interest litigation has resulted out of the liberalisation of the
complex rules, of formal legal system. It accelerates the zest of law to impart justice.
‘Public Interest’ is defined as follows, “Public interest is something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything to narrow as mere curiosity, or as the
Electronic copy available at: [Link]
interest of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national government...”1
Moreover, the word ‘Litigation means a legal action including all proceedings therein,
initiated before the court of law. So, lexically the term ‘PIL’ is enforcement of rights in
favour of general public interest by way of litigation.
In earlier times only the aggrieved party could approach the forum but with the passage of
time the Apex Court came up with an innovative view of introducing the concept wherein a
public spirited group or an individual can proceed with the litigation when public interest is
at stake. The public interest litigation can be introduced in the court of law either by the
court itself or by a private party. Such a situation arises when the party does not have
adequate resources or when his rights are encroached upon. Thereby the court can also take
the cognisance by itself and proceed suo moto.2
Public Interest Litigation is an
instrument of Social Change
Public interest litigation is not in the nature of
adversary litigation but these litigations are a
challenge and also an opportunity to the
government and its officers to make the human
rights meaningful.3 Public interest litigation
involves collaboration and cooperation between
1* LL.M 1st Year Student, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, Punjab.
Black’s Law Dictionary (sixth edition), also Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4, (IV Edition)
defines public interest as, “A matter of public or general interest ‘does not mean that which is
interestingly 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.
2 Available at <[Link] last visited on 27
September, 2009 at 19:27 IST.
3 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India 1984(2) SCR 67.
Electronic copy available at: [Link]
the government and its officers and the bar and the bench for the purpose of making human
rights meaningful for the weaker sections of the society.
The expression “public interest”4 finds it reference in Constitution of India and few other
statutes: Article 302 of the Indian Constitution states that, “Parliament may by law impose
such restriction on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one state and
another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest”
Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mentions ‘public interest’ as, “No public
officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence
when he considers that the public interest would suffer by that disclosure”
Section 397 of Companies Act, 1956 defines public interest as, “Any member of a company
who complain, that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial
to public interest or in a manner oppressive to any member or members (including any one
or more of themselves) may apply to the company law board for an order under this
section, provided such members have a right so to apply in virtue of section 399”.
In Kritisankarn Nair v Kumaran Nair5 the Kerala High Court held that the term, “Public
interest as a subject in which the public or section of public is interested, becomes one of
the public interest”.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh6 held that public
interest is not capable of precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and
4 [Link], Public Interest Litigation: A Handbook, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 2003, p.10.
5 AIR 1965 Ker 161.
6 AIR 1952 SC 252.
takes its colours from the statutes and what is public interest today may not be a decade
later.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India7, the court said that, “In public interest
litigation the role of judiciary is more assertive than in traditional actions. In the following
passage the court has distinguished between private litigations and public interest
litigation.8 It says that, “in public interest litigation, unlike traditional dispute resolution
mechanism, there is no determination or adjudication of individual rights. While in the
ordinary conventional adjudications the party structure is merely bipolar and the
controversy pertains to the determination of the legal consequences of past events and the
remedy is essentially linked to and limited by the logic of the array of the parties in a public
interest action the proceedings cut across and transcend these traditional forms and
inhibitions. The compulsion for the judicial innovation of the technique of a public interest
litigation is the constitutional promise of a social and economic transformation to usher in
an egalitarian social order and a welfare state....the dispute is not comparable to one
between private parties with the result there is no recognition of the status of a dominus litis
for any individual or group of individuals to determine the course on destination of the
proceedings, except to the extent recognised and permitted by the court. The “rights” of
those who bring the action on behalf of the others must necessarily be subordinate to the
interests of those, for whose benefit the action is brought. Generally, speaking it’s about the
content and the conduct of government action in relation to the constitutional or statutory
rights of segments of society and in certain circumstances the conduct of government
policies. Necessarily, both the party structure and the matters in controversy and sprawling
and amorphous, to be defined and adjusted or readjusted as the case may be, ad hoc
according as the exigencies of the emerging situation. The proceedings do not partake of
predetermined private law litigation models but the exogenously determined by variations
of themes”.
7 1984 (2) SCR 67.
8 [Link], Public Interest Litigation and Our Rights, First Edition, Diwedi Law Agency,
Allahabad, 2003, p.10.
Public interest litigation would be entertained by the court in following cases9:
If there is public injury or, Public wrong Public wrong caused by
Wrongful or ultra vires acts
or omissions of the state or
Public authority.
Public interest litigation displays many unique features which are not found in traditional
private litigation. In an ordinary traditional litigation two parties are arranged against each
other there is a disputed question of fact and/or law between them, they procedure their
own evidence, witnesses and precedents, and the court ordinarily arrives at a decision after
considering the materials and evidence placed before it. However, in public interest
litigation all this changes, here a single individual or a small organisation (petitioner) is
arranged against the might of many ministries and departments with standing counsels and
law officers.
The courts have recognised themselves not as mere independent arbitrators of the
constitution and that of the rule of law. They have held therefore that public interest
litigation belongs to a class, separate and distinct from ordinary litigation.
Administrative tribunals cannot entertain public interest litigation by total stranger. It was
held in the case of Duryodhan Sahu v Jitendra Kumar Mishra10that administrative tribunal
cannot entertain public interest litigation by a total stranger. In order to bring a matter
before tribunal an application has to be made and same can be made, only by the person
aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. If
9 Id.
10 AIR 1999 SC 114.
public interests litigations at the instance of strangers are allowed to be entertained by the
tribunal the very object of speedy disposal of service matters would be defeated11.
Moreover, the principles of Res Judicata do not apply strictly to public interest litigation.
The procedural law is applicable but not strictly. For instance where the prior public interest
relates to illegal meaning subsequent public interest litigation to protect environment is not
barred12.
2. OBJECT
The object of the public interest litigation is to ensure the public interest and protection of
legal or constitutional rights of the disadvantages and oppressed groups or individuals and
to under social and economic justice to them.13
In case of State of Himachal Pradesh v A Parent of Student of a Medical College 14. The
Supreme Court observed that, “public interest litigation is an innovative strategy which has
been evolved by the Supreme Court for the purpose of providing easy access to justice to
the weaker sections of the Indian humanity and it is a powerful tool in the hands of public
spirited individuals and social action groups for combating exploitation and injustice
securing for the underprivileged segments of society their social and economic
entitlements. It is highly effective weapon in the armoury of the law for reaching social
justice to the common man.
3. ORIGIN, GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
11 Supra Note 4.
12 Id.
13 P.M. Bakshi, Public Interest Litigation, Second Edition, Asoka Law House, New Delhi, 2006,
p.22.
14 AIR 1985 SC 910: (1985) 3 SCC 169.
Although the concept of public interest litigation owe its origin to United States of
America, but it has passed through ages transforming itself to adjust itself into common law
framework. Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 introduced the concept of public interest litigation
without comprehensively defining it in a case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdulbhai15
observed that, “Our adjectival branch of jurisprudence by and large, deals not with
sophisticated litigants but the rural poor, the urban lay and the weaker societal segments for
whom law will be an added terror if technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting
pleadings and setting out the cause title create a secret weapon to non suit a part. Where
foul play is absent, and fairness is flouted ....... public interest is promoted by a spacious
construction of locus standi in our socioeconomic circumstances and conceptual
latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with individualisation of the right to invoke the
higher courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they
are weaker”. In case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v Union of India16 the terminology.
“Public interest litigation as well as epistolary jurisdiction”
3.1 Doctrine of Locus Standi
The expression locus standi refers to the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the
court. If the petitioner has no locus standi, he cannot be heard in a court of law. 17 As per the
traditional view only those persons have locus standi,
1. Who have suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or
legally protected interest; or
2. Is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right or
legally protected interest.
15 AIR 1976 SC 1455.(1976) 3 SCC 832.
16 (1981) 2 SCR 52: AIR 1981 SCC 344.
17 Charan Lal Sahu v Giani Zail Singh, (1984) 1 SCC 390: AIR 1984 SC 309.
-
Public interest litigation owes its origin to liberalisation of the concept of locus standi18. In
the landmark cases of S.P. Gupta v Union of India19, People’s Union for Democratic Rights
v Union of India20, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India21, the Supreme Court has laid
down a new rule stating that any member of the public acting
bonafide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for “Indian PIL might rather be a
redressal of public wrong or public injury. Action can be brought by Phoenix: a whole new creative
arising out of the ashes of the
individuals, groups voluntary agencies etc other than interloper or
old order.”
busy bodies etc.22
- Cunningham
Reasons behind the liberalisation stated by Justice Bhagwati in S.P.
Gupta v Union of India23 that, “Today a vast resolution is taking
place in the judicial process, the theatre of law in fast changing and
the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront. The court has to innovate new
methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large
masses of people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty
18 Supra Note 4.
19 1981(Supp) SCC87: AIR 1982 SC 149.
20 (1982) 3 SCC 235: AIR 1982 SC 1473.
21 Supra Note 7.
22 Ibid, p. 11.
23 Supra Note 19.
have no meaning. The only way in which this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions
and even letters from public spirited individuals seeking judicial redress for the benefit of
persons who have suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or whose constitutional or legal
rights have been violated but who by reason of their poverty or socially or economically
disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court for relief”.
3.2 Aspects of PIL24
(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 India25, Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P.26, 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.
24Available at <[Link] last visited on 27
September,2009.
25 Supra Note. 7.
26 1993) 1 SCC 645
(d) Non-adversarial Litigation: In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India27,
“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.
3.3 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
27 Supra Note 20.
Investigation (CBI) or experts to inquire into human rights violations. This may be called
investigative litigation.
4. CONCEPT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES
United States can be said to be the originator of the concept of public interest litigation. In
the United States this branch of law is subsumed under the term public interest litigation.
The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in USA defined the
public interest litigation- in its report of public of interest law, USA, 1976.28 As, “public
interest litigation is the name that has recently been given to efforts provide legal
representation to previously unrepresented groups and interest, such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services to significant
segments of the population and to significant interests include the proper environmentalists
consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and other”.
Some aspects of public interest litigation in America are:-
1. In United States there is a category of public interest lawyer who agitate causes on
behalf of the poor, the minorities and other disadvantaged sections of society such
as the mentally ill, children, workers etc.
2. Further, even though only court rulings are discussed here, these lawyers also
operate before administrative agencies and legislature.
3. Ideological support to public interest law in the United States from the civil rights
movement and legal aid movement organisations like N.A.A.C.P/L.D.E.F, A.C.L.U,
Public Citizen, the Centre for Law and Social Policy, the Institute for Public Interest
Presentation and Citizens Communication Centre, Centre for Law in the Public
Interest etc.
28 Quoted in AIR 2001 Del 223 at 225.
4. In view of the heavy financial burdens imposed by the courts, many important cases
are settled out of court. These cases even though are not reported, have a great
impact in serving public interest, the terra firma of all public interest litigation.
Moreover, Article III Section 2 of the American Constitution lays down that judicial
power shall extend to all the cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the
laws of the United States and treatises made under their authority to controversies
between citizens of different states and between a state and citizens thereof.
In the case of Environmental Defence Fund v Environmental Protection Agency29 a
group of scientist filed a suit against the Suffolk country mosquito control commission
alleging adverse environmental impact on wildlife by the extensive use of DDT. The
court granted a one year ban on the use of DDT which was later made permanent by the
county.
In the case of United States v SCRAP30 an environmental group formed by law students
alleged that rail road rates increased by the interstate commerce commission would
adversely affect the shipment of the garbage which would disturb the environmental
balance around Washington. The court granted them standing and relief.
5. CONCEPT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN UNITED KINGDOM.
England is the progenitor of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and of the strict doctrine of locus
standi. Indeed it is on the basis of laws of England that the Indian case law has developed.
Lord Denning is responsible for liberalisation of doctrine of locus standi.
In 1957, Lord Denning in R v Thomas Magistrate’s Court, exparte green barren31 departed
from the old test. The case involved a pitch in a street market which was awarded to a seller
29 167 F.3d 641, 643 ([Link].1999).
30 412 US 660 (1973).
31 (1957) 5 LGR 129.
of jellied eels rather than a newspaper seller had no legal right to the pitch he was barred by
the strict doctrine of locus standi. However, lord denning held that he had locus standi and
quashed the order of the magistrate’s awarding the pitch.
Order 53, Rule 3(5) of the new rules of the court is introduced in January 1978; now enable
an application to cover all the remedies of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition and also a
declaration and injunction. In respect of all these remedies it lays down one simple test of
locus standi the applicant must have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the
application relates.
6. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Judicial activism which started from mid seventies injected the judicial stream which
mutated the outlook of Indian judiciary. As per Prof. Upendra Baxi, “judicial activism is
that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power
relations among the dominant institutions of state manned by members of the ruling
classes”. Justice Krishna Iyer remarked that, “public interest litigation as a product of
creative judicial engineering32.
Judicial activism through public interest litigation has opened new avenues of remedies for
the prisoner victims33. For instance in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary,
Bihar34 the supreme court held that keeping under trials in prison without any trial for long
durations violate their right to speedy trial implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India
practicing its judicial activism apex court has dealt with number of corruption cases for
instance in the court of Dinesh Trivedi v Union of India35 public interest litigation was filed
32 V.R. Krishna Iyer: “Justice at Crossroads”, p.105.
33 Supra Note 4, p.55.
34 AIR 1980 1 SCC 81.
35 AIR 1997 4 SCC 306.
by member of parliament in conjunction with NGO seeking direction to the government of
India to make public the vohra committee report along with supporting materials and also
seeking declaration that official secrets act is unconstitutional. The court held that under
Article 19(1) (a), the citizens have the right to know but like all rights it is also subject to
reasonable restrictions. The court directed that high level committee be appointed by the
president of India in consultation with prime minister and lok sabha which can monitor the
investigation and take necessary action.
“Through the instrument of public interest litigation, the court liberalised itself from
traditional constraints in the legal system as to reach the weaker section as of the Indian
humanity”36.
Prof Sathe says, “Activism can easily transcend the border of judicial review and turn into
populism and excessive. It is populism when doctrinal effervescence goes beyond the
institutional capacity of the judiciary to translate the doctrine into reality and its excessive
when a court undertakes a responsibility that should normally be discharged by other
coordinate organs of the government. He also points out that judicial activism does not
have its legitimacy because the other organs of the government have failed. That is only
one reason for judicial activism bordering on excessive. Even if other organs of the
government function efficiently, there will be need for judicial activism for recognising and
protecting the rights of powerless minorities37.
36 Videsh Upadhyay, ‘PIL’ in India Cases Concepts Concerns, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New
Delhi, 2007. P.331.
37 [Link], Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing borders and enforcing limits, 2nd Edition,
Oxford University Press, 2002, p.12.
In case of Jugal Baruah v Union of India38 Gauhati High Court observed that, “Redressal of
public injury, enforcement of public duty, and protection of social rights and vindication of
public interest must be the parameters for entertaining public interest litigation. The court
has bounden duty to see whether any legal person is caused to a person or a cluster of
persons or an indeterminate class of persons by way of infringement of any constitutional
or other legal rights while deluding into public interest litigation. The existence of any
public interest as well as bonafide is the other vital areas to come under the courts security.
In absence of any legal injury on public interest or bonafide, public interest litigation is
liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is to be borne in mind that ultimately it is the rule
of law that is to be vindicated. As such there is need for restrain on the part of the public
interest litigation when they move courts. The courts should also be cautious and selective
in accepting public interest litigation as well”.
In Triveniben v State of Gujarat39 it was stated that court has to be satisfied about:
i. The credentials of the applicant
ii. The prima facie correctness or nature of the information given by him
iii. The information being not vague and definite.
The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a
balance between two conflicting interest.
1) Nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations against the
others, and
2) Avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail,
for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however the court
cannot afford to be liberal40.
38 AIR 2003 Gau 37.
39 (1989) 1SCC 678.
7. ADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
8. LIMITATIONS
In case of Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal41 Supreme Court observed that, “If
courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations,
traditional litigations will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will
have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions”.
Delhi High Court observed in the case of Delhi Municipal Workers Union(regd) v Delhi
Municipal Corporation42 that, “When there is material to show that a petition styled as
public interest litigation is nothing but camouflage to foster personal dispute, said petition
is to be thrown out. 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’.
There must be real and genuine public interest involved in the litigation and it cannot be
invoked by a person or 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 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
40 Mamta Rao, Public Interest Litigation, Legal Aid and Lok Adalats, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow, 2004 pp.328,329.
41 (1987) 2 SCC 295; AIR 1987 SC 1109.
42 AIR 2001 Del 68 (71).
rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions but not for personal gain or private
motive or political project or any oblique considerations.
The test laid down for filing public interest litigation has been discussed in the case of K.V.
Amarnath v State of Karnataka43 mentions that whether there is existence or non existence
of writ jurisdiction which could be exercised in public interest litigation.
That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution of India and relief is sought for its enforcement.
That the action complained of is palpably illegal or malafide and affects the group
persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty,
incapacity or ignorance.
That the person or a group of persons were approaching the court in public interest
for redressal of public injury as arising from breach of public duty or from violation
of some of the constitutional law.
That such person or group of persons is not a busy body of meddlesome, interloper
and have not approached with malafide intention of indicating their personal
vengeance or grievance.
That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politician or
other busy bodies for political or unrelated objectives. Every default on the part of
state or public authority being not justifiable in public in such litigation.
That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or
prevented would weaken the faith of common man in the institution of judiciary and
the democratic set up of the country.
That the state action was being tried to be covered under the carpet and intended to
be thrown out of technicalities.
43 ILR (1998) Kar 730.
Public interest litigation may be initiated upon a petition filed or on the basis of a
letter or other information received put upon satisfaction that the information laid
down before the court was of such a nature which required examination.
That the person approaching the court has come with clean hands clean heart and
clean objectives.
That before taking any action in public interest the court must be satisfied that its
forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous litigants, politician’s busybody
or persons or groups with malafide objective of either for indication of the personal
grievance or by resort to black mailing on consideration of extraneous to public
interest.
9. 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.
