Author: Pamula Tanuja, Sri Padmavati Mahila Visvavidyalayam
Abstract
India is a complex and diverse political landscape, millions of people still lack the opportunity to access justice due to its complexity. By lowering conventional procedural obstacles, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) became a new method for democratizing court access. It gives people or groups the ability to advocate for the rights of those who are unable to access the legal system on their own because of poverty, illiteracy, or social exclusion. PIL has enhanced executive and legislative accountability, promoted good governance, and strengthened democratic ideals by giving a voice to the voiceless. In India, this article explores the evolution, constitutional ideas, operational dynamics, significant judgments of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Introduction
The separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial organs are the presence of political parties, and regular elections are all components of democracy, but it is much more than that. At its core, it’s about giving individuals the power to stand up for their rights and hold the government accountable. This ideal is firmly rooted in the preamble and the extensive scope of Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Due to poverty, illiteracy, social prejudice, and procedural obstacles, however, these rights have not always been realistically available to many cases of India’s population, particularly the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable.
The judiciary has played a crucial role in this setting by developing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a tool to bring the Constitution’s pledges to reality. Individuals who would not have any realistic way of approaching the courts have had the doors of justice opened to them by PIL. The Indian judiciary has been transformed into a center for addressing all forms of injustice, rather than just individual complaints, as it has democratized access to justice and encouraged social action.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is now recognized and researched all over the world as one of the most notable achievements of the Indian legal system because of its exceptional combination of constitutionalism, judicial activism, and social justice. PIL has greatly enhanced the foundations of Indian democracy by enabling concerned citizens, journalists, attorneys, and civil society organizations to bring issues of general public interest before the courts.
Historical Background
The Rise of International Law
After India’s independence in 1947 and the adoption of its Constitution in 1950, the newly created republic sought to create an equitable society that upheld basic rights and the rule of law. However, in the early decades of independent India, there was a noticeable disconnect between the Constitution’s promises and the reality of millions of people who were still impoverished, voiceless, and frequently barred from the formal legal system.
Like its British forerunner, the Indian legal system was historically founded on the principle of locus standi, which held that only someone whose own legal right was immediately impacted could seek remedy from a court. When the rights of marginalized communities, bonded laborers, abandoned children, or unorganized workers were infringed upon, this strict law proved to be a significant barrier, even if it worked well in typical civil disputes between private citizens. People like this frequently didn’t know what their rights were, have access to legal help, or have the ability to submit petitions.
India saw social movements, discussions about poverty and development, and appeals for a more proactive judiciary by the 1970s.
Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati, among other visionary judges, understood that the procedural obstacles of conventional litigation were rendering the Constitution’s protections meaningless for the most vulnerable members of society.
The rule of locus standi was made more flexible, and representative standing was established, enabling individuals or groups who were not able to do so to seek legal representation for rights.
Under Newspaper articles on horrible jail conditions were among the first triggers. The Supreme Court viewed letters detailing under trial convicts who had been imprisoned for years because they were unable to pay bail or get legal assistance as writ petitions. This established the basis for what became known as epistolary jurisdiction, where even a basic letter might initiate judicial proceedings in cases of public interest.
The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a unique and potent legal instrument that changed the connection between the courts and the public occurred during this era of judicial dynamism.
Some legal principles have been crucial in the evolution of Public Interest Litigation. The relaxation of locus standi permitted courts to consider petitions submitted by people or organizations who may not be directly impacted but who advocate for the well-being of others. Using its writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226, the court has issued writs such as mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition to ensure accountability and rectify administrative mistakes. By treating news reports and simple letters as petitions, the courts have also used epistolary jurisdiction to make justice available to people who cannot afford traditional legal procedures. The courts are able to oversee the execution of their orders over time thanks to the principle of continuing mandamus, particularly in cases involving broad public welfare. The doctrine of absolute liability in environmental law has strengthened the protective reach of PIL by holding industries involved in dangerous operations completely accountable for any harm they cause.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Constitution of India:
India’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has developed via a liberal and intentional reading of numerous constitutional clauses. The judiciary has constructed this notion on the basis of these provisions, albeit without specifically mentioning PIL, in order to guarantee justice, equality, accountability, and access to legal redress for all citizens, particularly the marginalized.
Under Fundamental Rights
•The right to constitutional remedies is granted by Article 32:-
One of the most important constitutional articles is Article 32, which ensures the right to petition the Supreme Court directly for the implementation of Fundamental Rights. It is a fundamental right in itself and acts as a vital defense for the protection of all other rights that are protected under Part III of the Constitution.
In Article 32, the phrase “appropriate proceedings” has been interpreted in a broad and liberal way by the courts under the PIL framework. In the past, petitions could only be filed by persons whose rights had been directly violated. However, in consideration of India’s socioeconomic realities, the courts extended this reading to allow third parties, public-minded individuals, and social organizations to file petitions on behalf of others who might not have the resources to do so on their own.
Using its authorities under Article 32, the Supreme Court may grant a variety of constitutional writs to uphold rights and obligations. These writs are effective tools for maintaining constitutional government and the rule of law. They are:
1.Habeas Corpus
The term habeas corpus is used to describe a legal action by means of writ that brings the accused or detainee before judicial authorities to determine their prison terms.
2. Mandamus
A court order that directs a public authority or government official to carry out a legal obligation that they have neglected or declined to do.
3. Prohibition
Prohibition is when a higher court orders a lower court or tribunal to stop proceedings in any matter that is outside of its jurisdiction or contrary to the law. “To forbid.”
4. Certiorari
It says that A writ through which a superior court examines and overturns the ruling or order of a lower court or tribunal that acted outside of its authority or in violation of the tenets of natural justice.
“To be informed” or “To be certified.”
5. Quo Warranto
A writ issued to investigate the legitimacy of a person’s claim to a public position and to dismiss them if their claim is found to be illegitimate. “Under what authority?
High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226:-
According to Article 226, High Courts have the power to issue writs for the protection of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
While the Supreme Court is confined to Fundamental Rights under Article 32, it has more authority than High Courts.
This Article has been essential in allowing the High Courts to accept Public Interest Litigation (PIL) even when the legality, fairness, or administrative responsibility of a subject are at issue, but there is no obvious infringement of a Fundamental Right.
Under this provision,
For example :- Problems involving abuse of authority by government officials, failure to deliver welfare services, or denial of legal rights may be brought to court.
By giving state-level access to judicial redress, Article 226 expands the scope of PIL and brings the constitutional pledge of justice closer to home and more accessible.
Article 14- Equality Before the Law
The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for everyone is enshrined in Article 14. It mandates reasonableness and fairness in all government actions and forbids the State from engaging in arbitrary and discriminatory behavior.
With reference to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) , Article 14 establishes a constitutional basis for contesting:
Regulations and laws that are unfair,
discriminatory conduct by officials,
Unequal allocation of services or public resources.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) turns into a tool through which courts can guarantee rationality, impartiality, and non-discrimination in governance when inequity or arbitrariness harms the public interest.
Article 15- Discrimination Is Prohibited
The State is prohibited from discriminating against citizens in terms of religion, race, caste, gender, or origin under this Article
As conceived by the founders of the Constitution, this clause promotes the idea of an inclusive and equitable society.
Systemic discrimination or denial of access and opportunity to marginalized groups are brought to the court’s attention via Public Interest Litigation (PIL) . This includes challenges to exclusionary practices, gender-based discrimination, and violations of dignity or equality. As a constitutional tool to promote social justice and affirmative inclusion, Article 15 enhances PIL.
Article 21
One of the most often cited clauses in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is article 21. No one may be deprived of their life or personal freedom except in accordance with due process of law.
Over time, Indian courts have expanded the meaning of “life” to include not only the existence of animals but also the right to live a life of human dignity and all the things that make life meaningful.
Consequently, several rights have been read into Article 21, including:
The entitlement to a safe and healthy environment,
The right to medical and health care,
The right to privacy and security,
The right to an education and a means of subsistence.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed when essential life aspects are endangered or violated, as outlined in the broadest definition. Accordingly, Article 21 is the foundation of the constitutional structure for PILs aimed at curbing systemic violations or abuse that endangers fundamental human rights.
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) :-
Article 39A-Free Legal Aid and Equal Justice (Directive Principle) –
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), while not enforceable in court, offer direction on how to interpret and implement Basic Rights. In order to guarantee that no citizen is denied access to justice due to economic or other impairments, Article 39A instructs the state to make sure that the legal system advances justice on the basis of equal opportunity and requires free legal assistance.
This provision has been instrumental in the growth of PIL because it demonstrates the constitutional dedication to the legal empowerment of the underprivileged and vulnerable. The judiciary has drawn ideas from Article 39A to improve court accessibility by loosening the regulations governing procedure and representation.
PIL promotes the ideals of equal justice and carries out the constitutional intent behind this Directive Principle by facilitating community-based representation and collective litigation.
Article 51A The Basic Responsibilities of Citizens
According to clause (g) of Article 51A, one of the fundamental duties of citizens is to preserve and improve the environment, which includes forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife.
Fundamental Duties offer a moral and civic basis for PILs brought by environmentally conscious citizens, social campaigners, and civil society groups, even if they are not enforceable by law. These responsibilities have been recognized by the courts as a rationale for public participation in judicial proceedings aimed at safeguarding national assets and public resources.
This provision enhances the participatory aspect of democracy, which PIL embodies, and promotes active citizenship. PILs are considered by the judiciary to be representations of citizens carrying out their obligations to the country and its constitutional principles..
Case laws :-
-Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCR 532 –
This case began with a newspaper article that brought attention to the predicament of thousands of undertrial inmates in Bihar who were kept in prison for long periods of time while awaiting trial. The sentences for the crimes for which they were accused were much shorter than the length of time they spent in jail.
Legal Issues:
A breach of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
Denying legal assistance and a fair trial
According to Article 21, the Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial is a basic right and that free legal assistance is an essential component of fair process. The Court mandated the release of inmates who had been imprisoned for longer than the allowed maximum and instructed the state to establish procedures to prevent such delays. The right to a fair trial was established as a constitutional one. Recognized free legal assistance as vital to justice. In the fight for prison reform, the way for judicial activism was opened.
-Union of India v. Gupta, S.P. AIR 1982 SC 149
In this case, the issue centered on the transfer and non-appointment of judges. For the first time, the judiciary had to weigh if a member of the public may contest governmental actions that are in the public interest.
Legal Issues:
The legitimacy of judicial transfers and appointments
The concept of locus standi in constitutional law
Justice P.N. Bhagwati broadened the concept of locus standi, giving any public-spirited individual the ability to petition the courts to uphold the rights of those who are unable to do so themselves. In India, this established the framework for the growth of PIL.
The tenet of liberal locus standi was established. Civil society gained the ability to seek judicial remedies in the public interest.
-Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) 3 SCC 161
The case was brought by an NGO to call attention to the deplorable situation of bonded workers in Haryana. The petition was submitted immediately following field research.
In this case Articles 21, 23, and 24 are violated. The denial of dignity, freedom, and protection from exploitation
The Court determined that bonded labor was an immediate infringement of Article 21 and highlighted the right to live in dignity. It maintained that the government has a responsibility to actively enforce labor laws and work to rehabilitate workers. Improved the dignity of Article 21’s interpretation. Significant judicial concerns about socioeconomic rights.
Conclusion
In India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has provided individuals and organizations with a more accessible means of seeking justice by presenting issues that affect the public. It has supported the enforcement of basic rights, fostered good governance, and given a voice to the oppressed. By means of PIL, the judiciary has been instrumental in promoting accountability and reinforcing democracy.
FAQS
What led to the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India?
To ensure that everyone has access to justice, especially those who cannot afford to seek it in court.
Which courts are authorized to hear PILs?
The Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) can hear Public Interest Litigation (PIL) .
In PILs, what is ‘locus standi’ and how is it relaxed?
The ability to file a case is known as locus standi. The regulations governing PILs are less stringent, allowing others to advocate for the rights of those who are unable to do so.
