Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal action in court initiated to protect
public interests, particularly those of marginalized or vulnerable groups who
might not be able to pursue legal action on their own. It has played a crucial
role in protecting various fundamental rights of citizens in India by
addressing issues like human rights violations, environmental degradation,
and government inaction.
How PIL Protects Fundamental Rights:
Addressing Human Rights Violations:
PIL has been instrumental in bringing attention to and addressing issues like
bonded labor, torture of undertrials, and exploitation of children. It has
provided relief to those who may not have been able to access justice
independently.
Environmental Protection:
PIL has been used to address environmental issues like pollution and
resource degradation, ensuring that fundamental rights to a clean and
healthy environment are protected.
Enforcing Government Accountability:
PIL helps hold the government accountable for failing to implement laws or
neglecting public welfare. It can also challenge actions of public authorities
that violate the rights of citizens.
Protecting Rights of Vulnerable Groups:
PIL has been a powerful tool in protecting the rights of marginalized groups,
including women, children, and Dalits, by ensuring they receive fair
treatment and access to basic necessities.
Promoting Social Justice:
PIL has been used to challenge discriminatory practices and promote social
justice, ensuring that everyone has equal rights and opportunities.
Judicial Review of Government Decisions:
PIL allows courts to review the lawfulness of government decisions, ensuring
that they are not arbitrary and that they comply with the law.
Suo Motu Cases:
The Supreme Court and High Courts can initiate PIL cases suo motu, meaning
they can take action on their own when they perceive a violation of public
interest.
Dilution of Locus Standi:
PIL has relaxed the traditional requirement of locus standi, which means that
anyone, not just those directly affected, can file a PIL on behalf of the public.
Concerns Associated with Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Some concerns associated with Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India
include:
Misuse and Abuse – Over the years, PIL has been used by individuals or
organizations for filing frivolous or politically motivated cases to advance
their own agendas or harass opponents. This amounts to an abuse of the
process of law.
Rise in Burden of Judiciary – The introduction of PIL in India has led to a
significant rise in the number of cases pending before the already
overburdened judiciary.
Frivolous Cases – leads to encroachment on judicial time due to a rise in the
number of frivolous PILs filed.
Delaying Developmental Activities – Many times, PIL has been used as a tool
to delay developmental activities. For example, a PIL was filed against
developmental activities at the premises of Puri Jagannath Temple.
Fear of Judicial Overreach – It, sometimes, leads to Judicial Overreach, where
courts are perceived to be encroaching upon the domain of the executive
and legislative branches of government.
Enforcement Challenges – Even when courts issue directives or orders in PIL
cases, enforcement mechanisms may be lacking, particularly in cases
involving structural or systemic issues. Without effective implementation,
court judgments may fail to bring about the desired outcomes or lasting
change.
Famous Judgements Related to PIL in India
Some landmark judgments which has led to the evolution of the Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) in India are:
Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai (1976) – In this case, Justice Krishna
Iyer laid the foundational concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India,
promoting the idea that collective societal issues could be addressed through
legal channels.
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) – In this case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati
expanded the scope of PIL, stating that “any member of the public or social
action group acting bonafide” could invoke the jurisdiction of High Courts or
the Supreme Court to seek redressal for the rights of those unable to
approach the court due to disabilities.
This judgment established PIL as a tool for enforcing public duties and
addressing executive misdeeds.
LOCUS STANDI IN PIL
In Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the concept of locus standi has been
significantly relaxed compared to traditional litigation. The traditional rule of
locus standi, which required a person to demonstrate a direct, personal injury
or interest to be able to sue, has been modified to allow anyone to file a PIL
on behalf of the public or a group of people who have been wronged. This
shift is based on the understanding that PIL is designed to address issues of
public importance and protect the rights of those who may not have the
resources or knowledge to do so themselves.
Leading Case Laws:
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982):
This case is often cited as a landmark decision in the development of PIL in
India. The court recognized the right of bar associations to file PILs on behalf
of the public, effectively broadening the scope of locus standi.
Shanti Kumar vs Home Insurance Co (1984):
The Supreme Court clarified that an “aggrieved person” must have suffered
a real injury, not just a hypothetical one.
Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt v. State of Karnataka & Others:
The court held that respondents had locus standi in a case concerning the
illegal grant of State largess, demonstrating a liberal interpretation of the
rule of locus standi in matters of public interest.
Key Elements of Locus Standi in PIL:
Relaxed Rule:
The traditional rule of locus standi has been relaxed, allowing any socially-
spirited person or group to file a PIL.
Public Interest:
PILs are generally filed to protect or enforce rights that benefit the society, a
community, or a class of people.
Enforcement of Rights:
The goal of PIL is to enforce rights that are not being properly protected by
the government or other authorities.
Addressing Systemic Issues:
PILs often address systemic issues, such as environmental degradation,
human rights violations, or corruption.
In summary, the concept of locus standi in PIL has been significantly
broadened to ensure that those who cannot adequately represent
themselves or who are facing systemic injustices have a means to seek
justice through the courts.
