CHAPTER - V

LEGAL AID AND PUBLIC

INTEREST LITIGATION
 CHAPTER – V

LEGAL AID AND PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION
5.1 MEANING AND CONCEPT OF PIL
'Public Interest Litigation', in simple words, means, litigation filed
in a court of law, for the protection of 'Public Interest', such as pollution,
terrorism, road safety, constructional hazards etc. Pubic Interest
Litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been
interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large. Although,
the main and only focus of such litigation is only 'Public Interest' there
are various areas where a PIL Can be filed. It is litigation which can be
introduced in a court of law, not only by the aggrieved party but also by
the court itself (suomoto) or by any other private party.
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.
In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of
India, 1 it was held that “Public Interest Litigation which is a strategic arm
of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within
the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visi bility area of
humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary
traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where
they is a dispute between two parties, one making a claim or see king
relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or relief.
Public Interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of

1
People‟s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, AIR 1982, SC 1473

153
enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the
case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote an d vindicate
public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal
rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially
or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and un -
redressed. That would be destructive of the Rule of Law which forms one
of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of
government. 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 the rule of
law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not
in reality.
Section 4(d) of Legal Services Authorities Act prescribe taking of
necessary steps by way of social justice litigation with regard to
consumer protection, environmental protection or any other matter of
special concern to the weaker sections of society by the Central Authority
i.e. NALSA, State Authority can also take similar steps in this regard by
filing PIL for the benefit of public at large.
Public Interest Litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act.
It has been interpreted by Judges considering the interest of public at
large. Although the main and only focus of such litigation is “Public
Interest”, there are various areas where Public Interest Litigation can be
filed. For example:
 Violation of basic human rights of the poor
 Content or conduct of Government Policy
 Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty
 Violation of religious rights and

154
  Violation of other fundamental rights.
5.2 DEFINITION, SCOPE AND NOMENCLATURE OF PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION
There is no specific or particular definition of the term “Public
Interest Litigation” or the Social Action Litigation in any of the
legislations enacted by the Indian Parliament so far or even in any of the
foreign legislations. In general words Public Interest Litigation means
when a case is filed in the court of law by public spirited person with the
intention to get relief for a poor and downtrodden persons or group of
persons. Some definitions of Public Interest Litigation given are as
follows:
(i) In the Black‟s Law Dictionary Public Interest Litigation is defined
as, “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 so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests 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.” 2
(ii) Advanced Law Lexicon has defined „Public Interest Litigation‟ as
“The expression PIl means a 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 has pecuniary interest or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.” 3
(iii) The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
Foundation in USA defined “Public Interest Litigation” in its

2
Henry Campbell Black, Black‟s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition 1990, West Publishing Co.,
p. 1229.
3
[Link]

155
 report of Public Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows: “Publ ic
Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts
provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups
and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition
that ordinary market place for legal services fails to p rovide such
services to significant segments of population and to significant
interests. Such groups and interests include the proper
environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and
others.”
(iv) Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights and
Others vs Union of India and Others 4 defined „Public Interest
Litigation‟ and observed that the “Public interest litigation is
cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of
public authority and the judiciary to secure ob servance of
constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon
poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.”
(v) In Shriram Food and Fertilizer case 5. the court through Public
Interest Litigation directed the company manufactur ing hazardous
and lethal chemical and gases posing danger to life and health of
workmen, to take all necessary safety measures before re -opening
the plant.
(vi) In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 6 – Public Interest
Litigation was brought against continuous water pollution of river
Ganga so as to prevent any further pollution of the Ganga water.
Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is
entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory

4
(1982) 3 SCC 235
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR (1986) 2 SCC 176.
6
(1988) 1 SCC 471.

156
 provisions as he is the person interest in protecting the lives of the
people who make use of the water of river Ganga.
(vii) In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India 7, Supreme Court held in
the Public Interest Litigation filed by a human right activist
fighting for general public interest that it is 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.
(viii) State v Union of India 8 In U.K., where courts like those in India
don‟t award massive damages, there has been innovation in legal
aid with wealthy benefactors pitching in to underwrite legal costs.
One property developer underwrote the legal costs of a large
number of arthritis patients who had sued for compensatio n for the
side effects they suffered from the drug, Opren. Similarly Sir
James Goldsmith, billionaire financier and father-in-law of Imran
Khan, set up the Goldsmith Libel Fund which provided support to
motley assortment of libel defendants. But it is deba table if such
private initiative would be forthcoming, or indeed welcoming and
supporting public interest cases involving the poor and the
marginalized. Activists however need to seriously consider the
issue of getting more public spirited lawyers to enter the fray.
5.3 OBJECTIVES OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
According to Justice Krishna Iyer, Public Interest Litigation is a
process of obtaining justice for the people, through the legal process. The
aim of Public Interest Litigation is to give to the common people of this
country, access to the courts so as to seek legal redress.
The general objectives of public interest litigation can be
summarized as follows:
7
AIR 1989 SC 2039.
8
AIR 1996 Cal 218.

157
 Increasing respect for the law
 Restoring confidence in the legal system and the justice deliver y
system
 Redress and compensation for victims and survivors
 Monitoring human rights violations and trends
 Strengthening the Constitution of India
 Fighting against impunity which is fuelling lawlessness and the
breakdown of the rule of law
 Introducing institutional and collective accountability to police,
army, State organs and Ministries.
 Pursuing human rights violators or representative state organs to
justice
 Creating a basis for international litigation or lobbying or advocacy
by exhausting domestic remedies.
The expected outcomes of public interest litigation in general can be
summarized as follows:-
 Restoration of and respect for the rule of law
 Restoration of public confidence in the justice delivery system
 Restoration of professionalism in and de-politicisation of the police
force and other state organs
 Accountability in the public sector
 Improvement of the human rights situation in India
5.4 HISTORY OF PIL IN INDIA
The origin and evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India
emanated from realization of constitutional obligation by the judiciary
towards the vast sections of the society – the poor and the marginalized
sections of the society. Prior to 1980s 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

158
doors of justice as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved party. In other
words, only the affected parties had the locus standi 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 illit erate citizens on
the other. The 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.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati recognized the
possibility of providing access to justice to the poor and exploited people
by relaxing the rules of standing. The first reported case of PIL in 1979
focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners. In
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 9, the PIL was filed by an advocate
on the basis of the news item published in the Indian Express,
highlighting the plight of thousands of unde r trial prisoners languishing in
various jails in Bihar. These proceeding led to the release of more than
40,000 undertrial prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic
fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set
pattern was adopted in subsequent cases. A new era of t he PIL movement
was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India 10. In this case it was held that “any member of the public
or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the writ jurisdiction of
the High Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressal against violation
of a legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or
economic or any other disability cannot approach the court. By this
judgement PIL became a potent weapon for the enforcement of 'Public
9
AIR 1979 SC 1369
10
AIR 1982 SC 149, 1982 (2) SCR 365

159
duties' where executed in action or misdeed resulted in public injury. And
as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action
groups can now 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.
The recent trend has also developed where the judges acting on a
newspaper report or a news item in television take suomoto cognizance of
the miseries being suffered by a particular class of persons and
immediately issue notice and register newspaper item or the media report
as writ petition and list the same for regular hearing in the registry before
the bench and seek compliance of the direction being issued time to time.
It can be evidently seen that the development of public interest
litigation has been extremely significant development in the history of the
Indian jurisprudence. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1970‟s
loosened the strict locus standi requirements to permit filing of pet itions
on behalf of marginalized and deprived sections of the society by public
spirited individuals, institutions or bodies. The higher courts exercised
wide powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
The sort of remedies sought from the courts in the public interest
litigation goes beyond award of remedies to the affected individuals and
groups. In suitable cases, the courts have also given guidelines and
directions. The courts have monitored implementation of legislation and
even formulated guidelines in absence of legislation.
5.5 RELATION BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
AND LEGAL AID
Public Interest Litigation as a Component of Access to Justice
for the Marginalized
The trend of bringing public interest litigation in the S upreme
Court and in the various High Courts by social action groups, the legal

160
aid societies, university teachers, advocates, voluntary organizations and
public-spirited citizens has risen in the country. This has helped to
ameliorate the miseries of thousands of persons, arising from repression,
governmental omissions or excesses, administrative lethargy or
arbitrariness or the non-enforcement of beneficial legislation. Cases of
under trials as well convicted prisoners, women in protective homes,
unorganized labourers, untouchables, miseries of scheduled castes and
tribes, landless agricultural labourers, slum -dwellers etc. are taken up in
PIL cases. The concepts of locus standi have been very much expanded
to meet the problems created by damage to environment or environmental
pollution. Public Interest Cases have also come to be filed seeking
direction against the Police or Sate for taking action against corrupt
individuals. The result is that the strict rules or locus standi which were
applicable in writ jurisdiction of our constitutional courts have practically
vanished. A most prominent example is that of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of
India 11 whereby hosts of factories which were posing a serious risk to the
Yamuna had to either relocate or were asked to shut down. Furthermore,
in the case of Olga Tellies ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 12, the
right to slum dwellers was upheld by the Supreme Court by stating that
the Right to Shelter forms an integral part of the Right to Life with
Dignity, and it is the right to a dignified life which has to be restored and
upheld by the courts in this country.
In its essence, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court was
explicitly surmised in the case of Bihar Legal Support Society vs. The
Chief Justice of India & Ors. 13 in the following words:
“The weaker sections of Indian society have been deprived of
justice for long long years; they have had no access to justice on account

11
1988 AIR 1115, 1988 SCR (2) 530
12
1985 SCC (3) 545
13
AIR 1987 SC 38

161
of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy. The majority of the people of
our country are subjected to this denial of „access to justice‟ and
overtaken by despair and helplessness, they continue to remain victims of
an exploitative society where economic power is concentrated in the
hands of a few and it is used for perpetuation of domination over lar ge
masses of human beings. The strategy of public interest litigation has
been evolved by this Court with a view to bringing justice within the easy
reach of the poor and disadvantaged sections of the community.”
Legal Aid as a major component in providing Access to Justice
Legal Aid is not merely a subject of academic discourse; it is a
social value of the Welfare state and the most potent weapon to
ameliorate the plight of the indigents.
An attempt, has been made by way of Section 2(1)(c) of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 which stipulates that “Legal Service”
includes the rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other
legal proceeding before any court or other authority or tribunal and the
giving of advice on any legal matter; To pr ovide free and competent legal
services to the weaker section of the society was the basic object of
enacting the aforesaid Act. Justice – social, economic and political, is our
constitutional pledge enshrined in the preamble of our Constitution. The
incorporation of Article 39-A in the Directive Principles of State Policy
in the year 1976, enjoined upon the State to ensure justice on the basis of
equal opportunity by providing free legal aid.
For long there has been a misconception that Legal Aid is not a
right in its true sense as it is incorporated under Article 39A thereby
being a Directive Principle of State Policy and not being part of the
Fundamental Right. However, the position of law is now well settled that
the Right to Representation as well as the Right to speedy trial has been
recognized as being part of the very Right to Life and Liberty and is

162
therefore of paramount significance. It is therefore the duty of the court in
order to facilitate, promote and ensure that this right is preserved at all
levels and that its sanctity is to be accorded from the very Preamble of the
Constitution. Expeditious relief entails that the right is to be made
available to every pauper, indigent, impecunious and destitute. Hence,
legal aid is not a charity or bounty, but is a constitutional obligation of
the state and right of the citizens. The problems of human law and justice,
guided by the constitutional goals to the solution of disparities, agonies,
despairs, and handicaps of the weaker, yet larger brackets of Bha rat‟s
humanity is the prime object of the dogma of “equal justice for all”. Thus,
legal aid strives to ensure that the constitutional pledge is fulfilled in its
letter and spirit and equal justice is made available to the downtrodden
and weaker sections of the society.
5.6 SUBJECTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
Public Interest Litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental
and other legal rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal
redressal system or otherwise in a disadvantageous posi tion, due to their
social or economic background. Such litigation can be initiated only for
redressal of a public injury, enforcement of a public duty or vindicating
interest of public nature. It is necessary that the petition is not filed for
personal gain or private motive or for other extraneous consideration and
is filed bona fide in public interest.
The following are the subjects which may be litigated under the
head of Public Interest Litigation:
(I) Matters of Public Interest:
(i) bonded labour matters
(ii) matters of neglected children
(iii) exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages to them
(except in individual cases)

163
(iv) matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Economically Backward Classes,
either by co-villagers or by police.
(v) matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of
ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of
heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life.
(vi) petitions from riot victims
(II) Matters of Private Nature:
(i) Threat to or harassment of the petitioner by private persons
(ii) seeking enquiry by an agency other than local police,
(iii) seeking police protection,
(iv) landlord tenant dispute
(v) service matters,
(vi) admission to medical or engineering colleges,
(vii) early hearing of matters pending in High Court and subordinate
courts and are not considered matters of public interest.
(III) Letter Petitions:
Petitions received by post even though not in public interest can be
treated as writ petitions if so directed by the Hon‟ble Judge nominated for
this purpose. Individual petitions complaining harassment or torture or
death in jail or by police, complaints of atrocities on women such as
harassment for dowry, bride burning, rape, murder and ki dnapping,
complaints relating to family pensions and complaints of refusal by police
to register the case can be registered as writ petitions, if so approved by
the concerned Hon‟ble Judge. If deemed expedient, a report from the
concerned authority is called before placing the matter before the Hon‟ble
Judge for directions. If so directed by the Hon‟ble Judge, the letter is
registered as writ petition and is thereafter listed before the court for
hearing.

164
 The write jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be inv oked under
Article 32, and of High Court under Art. 226 the Constitution for the
violation of fundamental rights.
The Fundamental Rights provided in the Indian Constitution are
guaranteed against any executive and legislative actions. Any executive
or legislative action, which infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of any
person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by the Courts
under Article 13 of the Constitution. In addition, the judiciary has the
power to issue the prerogative writes. These are the extra-ordinary
remedies provided to the citizens to get their rights enforced against any
authority in the State. These writes are – Habeas corpus, Mandamus,
Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo-warranto. Both, High Courts as well as
the Supreme Court may issue the writs.
The Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by the
Constitution cannot be suspended by the State, except during the period
of emergency, as laid down in Article 359 of the Constitution.
A Constitutional Remedy - Writs
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one,
without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also
referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article
32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has b een made the
protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under
Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be
refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of
writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order.
Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be
determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the
Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within
the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has

165
been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground
that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or
under the ordinary law.
(i) Habeas Corpus: A writ of Habeas Corpus is the most valuable writ
for personal liberty. A person, when arrested, can move the Court for
the issue of Habeas Corpus. It is an order by a court to the detaining
authority to produce the arrested person before it so that it may
examine whether the person has been detained lawfully or otherwise.
The writ of Habeas Corpus is a very powerful safeguard to the
subject against arbitrary acts not only of private individuals but also
the executive. The different purposes for which the writ of habeas
corpus is available may be stated as follows :
a) For the enforcement of fundamental rights of a person. If the
executive has arrested and detained any person without the
authority of any law or in contravention of the procedure
established by the law which authorises the detention, or the law
which authorises the imprisonment is itself invalid or
unconstitutional, the High Court or the Supreme Court may issue
a writ of Habeas Corpus against the authority which has kept the
person in Custody and order the release of the person under
detention.
b) It will also issue where the order if imprisonment or detention is
ultra vires the statue which authories the imprisonment or
detention.
The writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued in the following cases :
(i) Where the person against whom the writ is issued or the
person who is detained is not within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
(ii) To secure the release of a person who has been imprisoned by

166
 a court of law on a criminal charge.
(iii) To interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a Court of
record or by Parliament.
(ii) Mandamus: Mandamus is an order from a superior court to a lower
court or tribunal or public authority to perform an act, which falls
within its duty. It is issued to secure the performance of public
duties and to enforce private rights withheld by the public
authorities. The purposes for which a writ may be issued is as
follows :
(a) For the enforcement of fundamental rights. Whenever a public
officer or a Government has done some act which violates the
fundamental right of a person, the Court would issue a writ of
mandamus restraining the public officer or the Government from
enforcing that order or doing that act against the person whose
fundamental right has been infringed. Thus, where the petitioner,
who was otherwise eligible for appointment to the Subordinate
Civil Judicial Service, was not selected owing to the operation of
a 'Communal Rotation Order' which infringed the fundamental
right guaranteed to the petitioner by Art. 16(1), the Court issued
an order directing the Stage of Madras 'to consider and dispose of
the petitioner's application for the post after taking it on the file
on its merits and without applying the rule of communal
rotation' 14.
(b) Apart from the enforcement of fundamental rights, mandamus is
available from a High Court for various other purposes, e.g. –
(i) To enforce the performance of a statutory duty where a
public officer has got a power conferred by the Constitution
or a statute. The Court may issue a mandamus directing him

14
Venkataramana vs. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 229.

167
 to exercise the power in case he refuses to do it.
(ii) The writ will also lie to compel any person to perform his
public duty where the duty is imposed by the Constitution
or a statute or statutory instrument.
(iii) To compel a court or judicial tribunal to exercise its
jurisdiction when it has refused to exercise it.
(iv) To direct a public official or the Government not to enforce
a law which is unconstitutional.
The Courts are normally reluctant to issue any direction to
government for making a law.
Mandamus will not be granted against the following persons :
(i) The president, or the Governor of a State, for the exercise and
performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any
act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties.
(ii) Mandamus does not lie against a private individual or body
whether incorporated or not except where the State is in
collusion with such private party, in the matter of
contravention of any provision of the Constitution, or a statute
or a statutory instrument.
(iii) Quo-Warranto: The Quo-Warranto is a writ issued with a view to
restraining a person from acting in a public office to which he is not
entitled. The writ is used to prevent illegal assumption of any public
office or usurpation of any public office by anybody. The conditions
necessary for the issue of a writ of quo warranto are as follows :
(i) The office must be public and it must be created by a statute
or by the constitution itself.
(ii) The office must be a substantive one and not merely the
function or employment of a servant at the will and during the

168
 pleasure of another.
(iii) There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a statute
or statutory instrument, in appointing such person to that
office.
A writ of quo warranto lies against the person who is not entitled
to hold an office of public nature and is only an usurper of the office.
Such a person is required to show, by what authority he is entitled to hold
that office. The challenge can be made on the grounds such as he does not
fulfil the required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification
debarring him to hold such office.
Quo warranto is thus a very powerful instrument for safeguarding
against the usurpation of public officers.
(iv) Prohibition: Writ of Prohibition means to forbid or to stop and it is
popularly known as „Stay Order‟. This writ is issued when a lower
court or a body tries to transgress the limits or powers vested in it. It
is a writ issued by a superior court to lower court or a tribunal
forbidding it to perform an act outside its jurisdiction.
The writ of prohibition is a writ issued by the Supreme Court or a
High Court to an inferior court forbidding the latter to continue
proceedings therein in excess of its jurisdiction or to usurp a
jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested. In other words, the
object of the writ is to compel inferior courts to keep themselves
within the limits of their jurisdiction. In India, a writ of prohibition
may be issued not only in cases of absence or excess of jurisdic tion
but also in cases where the court or tribunal assumes jurisdiction
under a law which itself contravenes some fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court can issue the
writ only where a fundamental right is affected by reason of the
jurisdictional defect in the proceedings.

169
(v) Certiorari: Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The Writ of
Certiorari is issued by the Supreme Court to some inferior court or
tribunal to transfer the matter to it or to some other sup erior
authority for proper consideration. The writ of certiorari can be
issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the
order already passed by an inferior court.
The conditions necessary for the issue of the writ of certiorari are –
(i) There should be a tribunal or officer having legal authority to
determine questions affecting rights of subjects and having a duty
to act judicially.
(ii) Such tribunal or officer must have acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of the legal authority vested in such authority or in
contravention of the rules of natural justice.
(iii) The writ of certiorari would issue only if the authority as a duty to
proceed judicially to come to a decision after hearing the parties
interested in the matter without reference to any extr aneous
consideration.
(iv) A tribunal may be said to act without jurisdiction in any of the
following circumstances –
(a) Where the court is not properly constituted, that is to say, where
persons who are not qualified to sit on the tribunal have sat on
it and pronounced the decision complained against.
(b) Where the subject matter of enquiry is beyond the scope of the
tribunal according to the law which created it.
(c) Where the court has assumed a jurisdiction on the basis of a
wrong decision of facts upon the existence of which the
jurisdiction of the tribunal depends.
(d) Where there has been a failure of justice either because the
tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice or because

170
 its decision has been obtained by fraud, collusion or corruption.
(v) When the decision of an inferior tribunal is vitiated by an error
'apparent on the face of the record', it is liable to be quashed by
certiorari, even through the Court may have acted within its
jurisdiction.
In all such cases a High Court can issue a writ of certiorari to
quash the decision of the inferior tribunal and the Supreme Court can also
issue the writ in such cases, provided some fundamental right has also
been infringed by the order of complained against.
5.7 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE:
The concept of social justice can be studied under the following heads:
a) Equality and Social justice
b) Social justice in Social Dynamics
c) Social Justice and Law
d) Social Justice and Political Justice.
In a landmark judgment in M.C. Mehta vs State of T.N. 15 (known as
Child Labour Abolition case), a three judges bench of the Supreme Court
comprising Honourable Justice Kuldeep Singh, Justice B.L. Hansaria and
Justice S.B. Mazumdar has held that children below the age of 14 years
cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, or mines or other work.
The matter was brought in the notice of the Court by public spirited
lawyer Sh. M.C. Mehta through a public interest litigation under Art 32.
He told the court about the plight of children engag ed in Sivakasi Crackel
Factories and how the constitutional right of these children guaranteed by
Art. 24 was being grossly violated and requested the Court to issue
appropriate directions to the Government to take steps to abolish child
labour.

15
AIR 1997 SC 699

171
The Court issued the following directions:
(i) The court directed for setting up of Child labour Rehabilitation
Welfare Fund and asked the offending employers to pay for each
child compensation of Rs. 20,000 to be deposited in the fund and
suggested a number of measures to rehabilitate them in phase
manner.
(ii) The liability of the employer would not cease even if after the child
is discharged from work, asked the Government to ensure that an
adult member of the child‟s family gets a job in a factory or
anywhere in lieu of the child.
(iii) In those cases where it would not be possible to provide appropriate
jobs the Government would, as its compensation, deposit Rs. 5000
in the fund for each child employed in a factory or mine or in any
other hazardous employment.
(iv) In case of getting employment for an adult, the parent or guardian
shall have to withdraw his child from the job. Even if no
employment would be provided, the parent shall have to see that his
child is spared from the requirement of the job as an al ternative
source of income interest-income from deposit of Rs. 25000-would
become available to the child‟s family and it is ensured that he
continues his study up to the age of 14 years.
(v) As per Child Labour Policy of the Union Government, the Court
identified some industries for priority action and the industries so
identified are namely, 'The Match Precious Stone Polishing
Industry' in Jaipur, Rajasthan the 'Glass Industry' in Firozabad; the
'Brass-ware Industry' in Moradabad; the 'Handmade carpet Industry'
in Mirzapur, Bhadohi and the 'Lock making Industry' in Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh; the 'Slate Industry' in Manakpur, Andra Pradesh and
the 'Slate Industry' in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh for priority action

172
 by the authorities concerned.
(vi) For the purpose of collection of funds, „a district could be the unit
of collection so that the executive head of the district keeps
watchfull eye on the work of the inspectors.
(vii) The Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Union Government is
directed to file an affidavit within a month before the court about
the compliance of the directions issued in this regard.
(viii) Penal provisions contained in the 1986 Act will be applicable where
employment of a child labour prohibited by the Act is found.
In so far as the non hazardous jobs are concerned, the inspector
shall have to see that the working hours of the child are not more that 4 to
6 hours a day and he/she received education at least two hours each day.
The entire cost of education shall be borne by the employer.
The verdict gives a new hope to the children of the country that a
beginning is being made to honour the mandate in Articles 24, 39 (e), and
(f), 41, 45 and 47 of the Constitution of India.
In State of Tamil Nadu vs. Abu Kavar Bai, 16 the Court upheld the
validity of a law enacted for the nationalization of transport services in
the State on the ground that it was for giving effect to the directive
principles contained in Article 39(b) and (c). A nationalization scheme
meant for the purpose of distribution or preventing concentration of
wealth; as in the instant case, must have sufficient nexus to attract the
operation of Article 39 (b) and (c). The Tamil Nadu Act is valid as it
subserves nationalization policy.
In Pragati Varghese vs Cyril Geore Varghese, 17 the full bench of
the Bombay High Court has struck down section 1(C) of the Indian
Divorce Act under which a Christian wife had to prove adultery along
with cruelty or desertion while seeking a divorce. The court felt that it
16
(1984) 1 SCC 516
17
AIR 1997 Bombay 349

173
violates the fundamental right of a Christian woman to live with human
dignity under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Court also declare sections
17 and 20 of the Act invalid which provided that an annulment or divorce
passed by District Court was required to confirmed b y a three judges of
the High Court. The Court said that section 10 of the Act compels the
wife to continue to live with a man who has deserted her or treated her
with cruelty such a life is sub-human. There is denial to dissolve the
marriage when the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
In another significant judgment in Noor Saba Khatoon vs Mohd.
Quasim 18, the Supreme Court has held that a divorced muslim woman is
entitled to claim maintenance for her children till they become major. The
Court held that both under the Muslim Personal Law and under Section
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the obligation ruling was
giving by the Court while allowing an appeal by Ms. Noor Saba Khatoon
challenging the judgement of the Patna High Court which had red uced the
amount of maintenance.
The Court made it clear that this right was not restricted, affected
or controlled by divorced wife. Right to claim maintenance for two years
from the date of birth of the children under section 3(1) (B) of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act, 1986 is also established.
The children of Muslim parents are entitled to claim maintenance under
section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the period till they attain
majority or are able to maintain themselves, whichever is earlier and in
case of female, till they get married.
Such judgements indicates the freedom of judges to “make” law
within limits.
If justice is equality of rights, then political justice is equality of
political rights. The sphere of these political rights encompasses the State

18
AIR 1997 SC 32 80

174
with its government and laws regulating the affairs of the community.
Men‟s political rights are the rights that they have in relation to such
regulation. The principles of political justice developed in the w estern
liberal democratic tradition have had as their aim, the equalization of
political rights to the extent permitted by this political context. These
principles bear on two interrelated matters: the process of reaching
political decisions, and the results of the process. The process involves
most obviously the question of who is to have political power, and here
the principle is that such power must rest on the consent of the governed.
The result of the process involves the question of how political powe r is
to be used, how the governed are to be affected by it, etc. Here two
principles have been established: one, that the results of the political
process may not infringe certain basic rights or freedoms of each
individual; the other, that the results must end to achieve, or at least must
aim at achieving certain good for everyone and for the community.
5.8 MERITS & DE-MERITS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION:
Merits:
1. In Public Interest Litigation 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.
3. A PIL can be filed directly the High Court under article 226 and to
the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution and thus it
lead speedy remedy rather than wasting time going through the
Court as per hierarchy.

175
4. There is no limits and boundaries for the issue to be dealt with. A
PIL can be filed for any purpose, for example environmental
protection or for the welfare of labours provided the issue put forth
should not be for personal gain instead it should be for the group of
people at last.
5. There is no restriction on any person to file a PIL. The Supreme
Court has relaxed the rule of locus standi by which any person can
file a PIL irrespective of whether the person is an aggrieved person
or not.
Demerits:
1. Many of the PIL activists in the country started handling PIL as a
handy tool of harassment because frivolous cases can be filed
without investment of heavy court fees as compared to private civil
litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the vict ims of stay
orders obtained in the so-called PILs.
2. The flexibility of procedure that is a character of PIL has given rise
to another set of problems. It gives an opportunity to opposite
parties to ascertain the precise allegation and respond specific
issues.
3. The credibility of PIL process is now adversely affected by the
criticism that the judiciary is overstepping the boundaries of its
jurisdiction and that it is unable to supervise the effective
implementation of its orders.
4. PIL is being misused by the public agitating for private grievances
in the grab of public interest by seeking publicity rather than
supporting the public cause.
5.9 GUIDELINES TO PREVENT MISUSE OF PIL
The number of cases in which the misuse of PIL has be en
identified has reached its peak and so the Supreme Court has bothered to

176
interfere with this issue and has framed guidelines which are to be
followed by all the subordinate courts before entertaining a PIL petition.
The guidelines are the outcome of the case 'State of Uttaranchal vs.
Balwant Singh Chaufal'. 19 The guidelines stated in this case are as
follows:
(i) The PIL should be genuine and bonafide.
(ii) Each High Court should formulate rules for encouraging genuine
PILs and discourage PILs having malicious object.
(iii) The Court should at the very beginning verify the credentials of the
PIL before entertaining.
(iv) The Court should be satisfied with the credentials of the PIL before
accepting the PIL.
(v) The Court should also ensure that the PIL placed before it involves
a public interest or not.
(vi) The Courts should give priority to those PIL having larger public
interest, gravity and urgency over other PILs.
(vii) The Court should also ensure that the PIL redresses a genuine
public injury and no personal benefits.
(viii) The Court should further ensure that the PIL carrying ulterior
motives should be disposed of with costs.
5.10 OVERVIEW OF LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS IN PILS:
1. In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India 20, the
court permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Lit igation
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. Publi c Interest litigation is a
part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil
19
Civil Appeal No. 1132-1134 of 2002
20
A.I.R. 1982, S C 1473

177
 litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the Judicial
door steps.
2. In the Justice Transfer Case 21, 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 approached 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.
3. In Shiram Food & Fertilizer case 22, Public Interest Litigation
directed the Company 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.
4. In the case of M.C Mehta vs Union of India 23, this 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.
5. Council for Environment Legal Action v. Union of India 24.
Public Interest Litigation filed by registered voluntary organization
regarding economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court
issued appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to

21
AIR 1982, SC 149
22
AIR 1989, SC 2039
23
(1988) 1 SCC 471
24
(1996) 5 SCC 281

178
 protect ecology.
6. State v. Union of India 25
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
misued 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.
7. Devika Biswas v. Union of India
The matter of Devika Biswas v. Union of India 26 was listed before
the chief justice on 8 th may, 2014. In the state of Rajasthan, study
on camp conditions in Bundi District it was found that Only 12% of
women had been counseled about other forms of contraception; 42%
not counseled about permanency of sterilization; 88% not informed
about complications, side-effects or failures. 58% women
experienced at least one adverse side effect.
8. D.K. Basu vs. State of a West Bengal 27
In the judgement of above case the supreme court issued the clear
guidelines which were to be followed by the police officials while

25
AIR 1996 Cal 181 at 218
26
WP(C) 95 of 2012
27
(1997) 1 SCC 416

179
 arresting a person and during the custody.
9. There have been instances when an entire fleet of smoke splitting
diesel, fleat of buses operating as public transport in Delhi were
converted into CNG through the force of a judicial order pacsed in
Public Interest Litigation titled M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India 28 and
there has been instances where almost all of Delhi was sealed and
entire block of illegal constructions and properties built in
contravention of master plan were ordered to be demolished/sealed,
also through an order passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a PIL
titled as M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India 29.
10. The Supreme Court has entertained PIL for curbing the
environmental degradation and deterioration in the general outlook
of beauty of Taj Mahal due to increased pollution levels and due to
construction of a corridor just behind Taj Mahal which caused
enormous damage to scenic beauty of Taj Mahal and has issued
sufficient guidelines to stop the construction of Taj Corridor as well
as initiated criminal prosecution against the persons in -charge who
were instrumental in initiating the Taj Corridor Project as per
decision of Supreme Court in case M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. 30
11. In Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti vs. State of Rajasthan. 31 The
Supreme Court observed in the said case that the menace of stray
cattle has reached a state where the entire planning of the city has
gone haywire and creating a lot of nuisance for the citizens and all
this had happened at the cost of the health and decent living of the
city residents violating their rights under Article 21 and the
direction issued by the High Court to shift the Milk Dairies and

28
AIR 2001 SC 1948; 2001(2) SCR 698
29
AIR 2006 SC 1325; 2006(2) SCR 264
30
2001(9) SCC 235 and AIR 2004 SC 800.
31
(2007) 2 SCC 413

180
 relocate the same to other areas in the city were held to be correct
and in the interest of justice.
12. In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, 32 Supreme
Court ordered that all industries operating within the residential
realm of the city limits be relocated to industrial area at the outer
limits of the city so as to obviate any environmental pollution and to
make overall improvement in the general life standards of the
residents of the city.
13. In another significant case Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India 33
Supreme Court was aghast at the attitude of the hospitals which did
not provide any first aid facilities to the injured who were brought
at their doorsteps, insisting sheepishly on first co mpleting the
financial formalities and in that categorical judgment, the Supreme
Court held that it is the 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.
14. In an another important ruling Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab, 34 the
Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the provisions of Jail
manuals dividing the prisoners into A, B, and C classes, acting upon
a PIL Petition and held that there cannot be any classification of
convicts on the basis of their social status, education or habit of
living.
15. P. Siva Kumar Vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Govt. of Karnataka 35.
In this PIL the Petitioner, a social activist has prayed for issue of a
writ of mandamus to the competent authorities of the State of
Karnatka and Tamil Nadu and other authorities to take preventive

32
1996 (4) SCC 351
33
AIR 1989 SC 2039
34
2000 Crl. L.J. 3298
35
(2016) 8 SCALE 841

181
 and prohibitive measures as there is violence in the stet because of
an order passed by the court – the people cannot become law unto
themselves and it is obligatory on the part of authorities of both the
states namely State of Karnataka and State of Tamil Nadu to
prevent such actions. The measures have been stated in the
judgement and Hon'ble Supreme Court have reproduced them as it
has been suggested to the cout for facilitating.
16. In Re Outrage as Parents End Life After Child's Dengue Death 36
The matter has been taken up on the basis of news report titled
"Outrage as parents end life after child's dengue death" published in
the Sunday Times of India. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has
passed an order to treat it as Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation.
The Chief Minister is unwell an perhaps may not be able to attend
the meeting. If he is not in a position to attend the meeting, h e will
be represented by the Deputy Chief Minister. The court says that the
court expends the participants to keep interest of people of Delhi in
mind and look out the at the entire exercise in a positive manner and
think about the future rather than past. The court also expect the
efforts to be consultative, collaborative and cooperative.
17. In Swati Maliwal Jai Hind Chairperson Delhi commission for
women vs. Raju Through Ju Venile Justice Board 37, the Hon'ble
court said the legal issue raised in the main writ petition i.e. the
need for ascertaining the factum of reformation of the Juveniles in
conflict with law before they are released from the Special Home on
expiry of period of stay ordered by the Juvenile Justice Board, is a
larger issue of public importance which requires deeper
consideration.

36
(2016)9 SCALE 719
37
Recent Apex Judgements (RAJ)18 (2016)1

182
18. Subhas Datta vs Union of India and others 38
Petition has been filed as public interest litigation on the issue of
protection of historical objects preserved at different places in
country particularly in various musiums. Learned Additional
Solicitor General and Counsel for respondents fairly stated that the
concern of petitioner is genuine. They assured the court that the
concern will be addressed and necessary steps in the matter will be
taken. The court said that review meetings may be held at least once
in every six months to consider further course of action and if any
grievance survives, it will be open to any aggrieved person to take
legal remedies in accordance with law.
5.11 CONCLUSION
The main concerns of PIL are the concerns of the poor and their
development. Gradually, PIL entered into other domains; viz
environmental field, education, corruption in public life, public health,
under-trials, awarding compensation for victims of human rights,
evolving human rights jurisprudence etc.
Public Interest Litigation is based on the innovated concept of
safeguarding the rights of various categories of persons, who could not
approach the Court due to poverty and other social conditions. In India,
the Supreme Court thought it proper, to meet the ends of justice to
entertain Public Interest Litigations to safeguard the rights of
disadvantaged, marginalized sections of the society (i) poorest of the
poor; (ii) depraved; (iii) the illiterate; (iv) the urban and rural
unorganized labour sector; (v) handicapped by ignorance, indigence and
illiteracy; (vi) other downtrodden having no access to justice and (vii)
women and children.
In the aforesaid categories, women and children put together

38
(2015)2 RCR (Civil) 1043

183
constitute more than 70% of the total population. Without safeguarding
the rights of women and protecting the children, based on their
constitutional rights and guidelines given in various international treaties
and conventions, we cannot imagine the future of the country. The
important role of PIL is for making justice available to the aforesaid
categories of persons, especially the women and children, by way of
“social interest litigation”, otherwise known as Public Interest Litigation.
Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer could be credited with, idealing PIL. He
revolutionized Indian Jurisprudence by striking out new directions in the
quest for justice. He persuaded his collegues in the Apex Court to fashion
a new jurisprudence and encouraged the liberalization of access to justice
by jettisoning the old locus standi rule. 39
Public Interest Litigation has no doubt served to the maximum for
the welfare of the society. For such a long time, the PIL has contributed a
lot in moulding the law, in accordance with the changes and development
in the society. Without this doctrine of Public Interest Litigation, it would
have been a very difficult way to enact and amend laws as per the
changing circumstances of the society. Therefore this concept has
fastened the process of amend law in accordance with the changing needs
of the society. Though, this doctrine has been of utmost importance, the
misuse of it, is much obvious as it has a simple and cheaper procedure,
but the Supreme Court has reduced the misuse of this doctrine by faming
suitable guidelines, which are to be strictly followed by the courts before
entertaining a petition of PIL. Thus, the doctrine of PIL has been
preserved from being misused, and its efficacy is again retained.

39
Anil Divan, when jutice Krishna Iyer passed away on 04-12-14, The Hindu, 05-12-14 at
p.13.

184