Author: Ayush Kumar Gautam, a student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
INTRODUCTION
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a formidable tool in the Indian legal system, aimed at addressing grievances and ensuring justice for marginalized and underrepresented sections of society. The concept of PIL, though borrowed from American jurisprudence, has been effectively indigenized to suit the socio-political landscape of India. PILs play a pivotal role in enhancing political accountability and governance by bridging the gap between the government and the governed. This article delves into the influence of PILs on political accountability and governance, supported by legal doctrines, principles, and landmark judgments.
GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF PILS IN INDIA
Public Interest Litigation, as a judicial innovation, was introduced to ensure access to justice for those unable to approach the courts due to financial or social constraints. The Supreme Court of India, under its epistolary jurisdiction, expanded the ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to constitutional remedies.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer are credited with pioneering the concept of PIL in India during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which dealt with the plight of undertrial prisoners, marked the advent of PILs. This case underscored the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing systemic governance failures.
Another landmark case, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also known as the Judge’s Transfer case, laid the foundation for liberalizing the concept of locus standi, enabling concerned citizens to approach courts on behalf of those unable to assert their rights.
The evolution of PILs in India is rooted in addressing societal inequalities. For instance, the landmark judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) provided relief to bonded laborers and emphasized the need for judicial intervention in socio-economic matters. Similarly, Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) focused on the condition of women in prisons, further expanding the scope of judicial activism.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING PILS
PILs are primarily filed under:
Article 32 (Supreme Court): For enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 226 (High Courts): For enforcement of rights and legal duties.
Article 136: Special leave petitions in matters of public interest.
The courts have adopted a liberal interpretation of locus standi, allowing individuals, NGOs, or even letters to the court to initiate PILs. This deviation from traditional adversarial litigation emphasizes social justice and public welfare. Judicial pronouncements have clarified that PILs must serve public interest rather than personal grievances, as held in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992).
PILS AS A MECHANISM FOR POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Political accountability entails the responsibility of public officials to justify their actions and decisions to the electorate and legal institutions. PILs act as a check on arbitrary or unconstitutional acts of political authorities. They compel transparency and adherence to the rule of law. Below are some notable cases that demonstrate the influence of PILs on political accountability:
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996): Popularly known as the Jain Hawala case, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to ensure the independence of investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This judgment reinforced the principle of non-interference by political entities in criminal investigations, enhancing accountability.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) v. Union of India (2012): The 2G Spectrum case, where the Supreme Court quashed the allocation of 2G licenses, epitomizes the use of PIL to expose corruption at the highest echelons of political power.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2014): The Coalgate scam, where the apex court cancelled coal block allocations, showcased the judiciary’s resolve to address governance failures through PILs.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): The directives issued by the court for police reforms have significantly impacted law enforcement governance by reducing political interference in policing.
The influence of PILs extends to electoral reforms as well. In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court mandated the disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates contesting elections, fostering transparency in the political system.
Impact on Governance: Governance encompasses the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which authority is exercised. PILs have significantly impacted governance in India by ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates and fostering participatory democracy.
Enhancing Transparency and Accountability: PILs compel the executive to function transparently. For instance, in Common Cause v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court directed the formulation of guidelines for regulating government advertisements to prevent misuse of public funds for political gains.
The Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018) case mandated the disclosure of criminal antecedents of electoral candidates, emphasizing clean governance and transparency. Furthermore, PILs like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) have held public authorities accountable for environmental degradation, underscoring their duty to protect public health and natural resources.
Strengthening Policy Implementation: PILs often highlight lacunae in policy implementation, prompting the executive to rectify governance lapses. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the court’s directives to combat vehicular pollution in Delhi led to significant environmental policy reforms. Similarly, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) addressed unscientific mining practices in the Doon Valley, emphasizing sustainable development.
Judicial Activism in Governance: The judiciary, through PILs, has assumed an active role in governance. This phenomenon, termed judicial activism, has invited both praise and criticism. While it ensures accountability, critics argue it encroaches upon the domain of the legislature and executive. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) case, dealing with bonded labour, exemplifies judicial intervention to enforce socio-economic rights.
Judicial activism in PILs has also influenced health governance. For example, in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the court recognized the state’s obligation to provide adequate healthcare facilities, highlighting the importance of welfare-oriented governance.
Socio-Economic Justice Through PILs: PILs have played a significant role in addressing socio-economic inequalities. Cases like People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) highlighted the exploitation of laborers, resulting in the enforcement of labour laws and minimum wage provisions. Similarly, Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) upheld the right to education as a fundamental right, shaping educational governance policies.
The judiciary’s intervention through PILs has extended to addressing housing rights. In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990), the Supreme Court recognized the right to shelter as integral to the right to life, influencing urban development policies.
CRITICISM OF PILS: CONCERNS OF JUDICIAL OVERREACH
While PILs have transformed governance, they have also raised concerns about judicial overreach. Critics argue that PILs sometimes lead to excessive interference in policy matters, undermining the separation of powers.
Ashok Kumar Panda v. State of Bihar (2002): The court highlighted the need to curb frivolous PILs, which burden the judiciary and dilute its impact.
Balco Employees Union v. Union of India (2002): The Supreme Court emphasized that PILs should not be used to settle political scores or interfere in matters of economic policy.
Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008): The court cautioned against unnecessary judicial activism, warning that excessive intervention could disrupt the balance of powers.
CASE STUDIES HIGHLIGHTING GOVERNANCE IMPACT
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
In the absence of legislative provisions addressing sexual harassment at workplaces, the Supreme Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines under a PIL. This case underscores how PILs can fill legislative voids, compelling the executive to enact policies.
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
This case addressed the eviction of pavement dwellers. The court’s judgment emphasized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, influencing governance in urban planning and resettlement policies.
3. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1989)
Following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, PILs ensured accountability for industrial disasters. The court’s intervention in this case emphasized corporate accountability and environmental governance.
4. Environmental Governance Through PILs
PILs like T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) have significantly contributed to environmental governance. The case led to stringent forest conservation measures and highlighted the judiciary
FUTURE PROSPECTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While PILs have proven instrumental in fostering political accountability and governance, their misuse and overdependence pose challenges. To ensure their efficacy, the following measures are recommended:
Screening Mechanisms: Establish dedicated benches to scrutinize PILs and weed out frivolous petitions.
Periodic Review: Evaluate the implementation of court directives issued in PILs to ensure compliance.
Judicial Restraint: Courts must exercise restraint and avoid venturing into policy-making domains unless absolutely necessary.
Capacity Building: Strengthen the judiciary’s capacity to handle PILs by appointing more judges and improving infrastructure.
Enhanced Legal Literacy: Promote awareness among citizens about the scope and purpose of PILs to prevent misuse.
CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigations have redefined the relationship between the judiciary, executive, and citizens. By addressing issues of corruption, inefficiency, and governance failures, PILs have emerged as a powerful instrument to ensure political accountability and improve governance. However, the judiciary must balance its proactive role with judicial restraint to prevent overreach. As India continues its journey as a vibrant democracy, PILs will remain a cornerstone of its legal and governance framework, ensuring justice and equity for all.
The transformative potential of PILs lies in their ability to catalyze systemic change, making governance more inclusive, transparent, and accountable. With judicious use and robust mechanisms to prevent abuse, PILs will continue to uphold the democratic ethos enshrined in the Constitution of India.
FAQS
Q1: What is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
A PIL is a legal mechanism that allows individuals or groups to approach the court to seek justice for broader societal issues, particularly where the rights of marginalized or underrepresented groups are involved. It aims to protect the public interest and ensure accountability of authorities.
Q2: How do PILs enhance political accountability?
PILs compel public officials and institutions to justify their actions and decisions. By challenging corruption, inefficiency, or unconstitutional actions, PILs ensure transparency and adherence to the rule of law. Landmark cases like the 2G Spectrum Case (CPIL v. Union of India) highlight their role in exposing political corruption.
Q3: What legal provisions govern PILs in India?
PILs can be filed under:
Article 32: For enforcement of fundamental rights in the Supreme Court.
Article 226: For enforcement of rights and duties in High Courts.
Article 136: Special leave petitions for matters of public interest.
Q4: What is the role of the judiciary in PILs?
The judiciary uses PILs to enforce constitutional mandates, address governance failures, and protect public welfare. This proactive role is often termed judicial activism, which ensures accountability but sometimes raises concerns of judicial overreach.
Q5: Why are PILs important in a democracy?
PILs empower citizens, ensure government accountability, and address systemic inequalities. They strengthen the democratic framework by making governance more transparent, inclusive, and equitable.
