Author: Neya Dharshini S, SASTRA Deemed to be University
To the point
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is essential in contemporary India, as we are a social welfare-oriented country. PIL can be filed by an advocate or any other social activist or a public-spirited person, and they should have no malafide intention or any personal gains in filing the PIL. PIL has a rich history and has evolved significantly in response to the challenges it has faced. At the time when the concept of PIL was derived, from the US concept called Social Action Litigation, and introduced in India, people had no idea about its working. But the efforts and noble works of MC Mehta, a social activist, and Prof. Buxi made a clear-cut view of its working and the effect it could make in the country. During its evolution, it has faced a lot of challenges, like limitations, epistolary jurisdiction, and judicial activism. Let us see in detail how the PIL has evolved by thrashing out the challenges.
Abstract
Social action litigation is the concept that was used in the USA. This type of litigation is filed for a particular class of people who cannot afford to sue or defend the case in court. These people include
Socially marginalized people
Economically backward community
SC/ST people
Women and children
And this is not exhaustive. It can be filed when their constitutional rights and fundamental rights are being violated. Since this concept had an effective response and rightful consequences, India adopted this concept and modified the concept into Public Interest Litigation by widening its scope and liberalizing locus standi. A person can file a PIL even though he/she has not been personally affected. His/her locus standi need not be proved when the litigation involves public interests and strictly no personal gains.
Use of legal jargon
In the case of Mumbai Kamakar Sabha vs Abdul Bhai, the PIL was first introduced legally. Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagawati were the two great pillars behind this concept. In this case, the court dealt with the functioning of the Bonus Act, where the act says that, other than the normal bonus, the workers are also entitled to bonuses based on customs and tradition. But the workers were denied the customary and traditional bonuses. The Union decided to file a case, and the workers are not directly named as parties. The court accepted the case in the notion of public interest and allowed the union to file on behalf of the workers by liberalizing the locus standi, and so the PIL concept has been launched. The court held that the workers should not be precluded from any of the bonuses mentioned under the Bonus Act.
Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar was the first PIL case filed in the court. The facts of the case are that some of the persons were arrested and detained in prison without being produced in court and are addressed as under-trial prisoners. They were detained for a very long time without being them to trial proceedings, and they have not been released either. So, a PIL was filed to plead for the release of under-trial prisoners. The court admitted the PIL, even though the petitioner had not been personally affected, as a social interest was involved and the principle of liberalization of locus standi applied. The court ordered the release of the under-trial prisoners immediately and held that the prisoners also have rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of our Constitution.
Justice Bhagawati introduced a new aspect to the concept of PIL. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon, a person was allowed to file a PIL. But in the case of SP Gupta vs UOI, Justice Bhagawati held that even a social action group can file a PIL, and this gave a new notion to PIL. This case is also known as the Judges Transfer case, and it deals with the overexposure of executives in judicial matters. In this case, the court held that a writ petition can be filed directly to the Supreme Court and the High Court by invoking Article 32 and Article 226 of our constitution, and a writ can be filed if it includes public interest. PIL can also be filed to enforce public duties, which will affect the public if it is not being done. Through this case, people were allowed to hold the government accountable, and by allowing individuals, social action groups, and other public-spirited entities to file PIL, it is ensured that the people are not deprived of their rights.
Challenges faced by the PIL are Limitation, Epistolary Jurisdiction, and Judicial activism.
Limitation
There was no prescribed limitation period to file a PIL. PIL involves no formality in the legal proceedings, and because of that, it does not emphasize the limitation period. In the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra vs Collector, Raipur, a PIL was filed after a long time, and the petitioner could not show sufficient cause for the delay. So, the court dismissed the case. In the case of Rabindranath vs Union of India, a PIL case was filed after a long period. But in this case, the court admitted the case despite of sufficient case for the delay since the court is not following the legal formalities in the procedure of PIL. In the case of GP Deva vs Chief Secretary, State of UP, a PIL case was filed after a long period. He was representing the State Government, and there was a delay from the Court in producing the necessary documents for filing the further case. The court where the PIL was filed accepted this as a sufficient cause for the delay of filing the PIL and thus admitted the case. There were no proper guidelines regarding the limitation period, and there were no standard precedents to file a PIL, and it was very tough for the court to decide whether to deny or admit the case.
Epistolary Jurisdiction
Epistolary Jurisdiction enables the court to admit a letter written to a Judge or telegram, or even a piece of newspaper, as a PIL petition. This became an instrument to enable the Supreme Court and the High Court to take a PIL without demanding any formalities. In the Judges Transfer case, the court held that any letters or telegrams pertaining to any public issues should be sent to the Court and not to an individual judge. But while dealing with another case, Justice Bhagawati stated that any letters or telegrams pertaining to any public issues can be sent to Judges directly. Because, if it is sent to the court, there is a probability that it will be getting rejected and so it can be sent to judges. This statement was contended saying that, due to this epistolary jurisdiction, the number of cases is being filed enormously. Justice Bhagawati replied to this statement saying that just because the number of cases are rich, the issues of the poor must not be disregarded. There were many contentions and controversies going on regarding admitting the letters and telegrams.
Judicial Activism
Judges are there to implement the law and interpret the law appropriate to the situation of the case. But this concept of judicial activism empowers the judges to go beyond implementing the laws. They can define the law by widening its scope and thus render justice to the aggrieved party. This judicial activism was a challenge for PIL as this encroaches the concept of separation of powers which will eventually lead to inconsistent decisions. PILs are filed in the courts by the public when the public is getting affected by the inadequate functioning of the executive and legislative bodies. Thus, the judiciary is interfering in the functioning of the executive and legislative bodies which violates the concept of separation of power and this was considered as one of the biggest challenges.
Enrichment and case laws
Despite all these challenges, the noble social works of MC Mehta have helped and enriched us to utilize the perks of Public Interest Litigation. Let us see some of the case laws that helped in shaping the nature of PIL.
MC Mehta vs UOI (1985)
In this case, there was an industry in Bhopal. Due to the negligence of the workers and employees, a dangerous gas got leaked. It is popularly known as Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Because of this, environment got enormously polluted and people also got affected both physically and biologically. So, MC Mehta filed a PIL case since it is a public issue. The court held that the industry is liable to pay compensation to the people who got affected by this tragedy and asked the industry to revive the environment.
MC Mehta vs UOI (1986)
This case is popularly known as Oleum gas leak case. The gas got leaked from the industry and it affected the environment and the residents of that area. MC Mehta filed a PIL. The court held that the industry is liable to pay compensation to the people who got affected by this tragedy and asked the industry to revive the environment.
MC Mehta vs UOI (Taj trapezium case)
Due to the air pollution in the city of Agra, the pure white color of the the Taj Mahal started fading away. So, MC Mehta filed a PIL case since it is a world wonder and our own monument. The court admitted it as PIL and the court held that the air pollution should be controlled and gave guidelines that should be followed in order to control the pollution and to save the preciousness of our monument.
MC Mehta vs UOI (Ganges case)
A concert happened in the bank of River Ganga and the people who came to the concert polluted the Ganga severely. PIL was filed and the court held that, no concert or show can be conducted in the bank of the river. The court also declared the area of 1 KM radius around Ganga as green belt and ordered that no meetings or constructions can be done in the green belt area without the sanction of the Govt as well as the court.
FAQs
In which court PIL can be filed?
PIL can be filed in any High Courts or in the Supreme Court of India.
Are writ and PIL same?
No, writ and PIL are slightly different. Writ can be filed only by an affected party whereas PIL can be filed by any public-spirited person or any social action group for an issue that affects the public. Locus standi is liberalized in PIL.
Is there any format for PIL?
There is no form prescribed for PIL petition. Even the letters, telegrams and an article in the newspaper can be taken as PIL and the court can adjudicate it.
