Here is your essay on PIL – (Public Interest Litigation):
The Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights under Part III. But it is true that a declaration of Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there is an effective machinery for their enforcement. Any person whose fundamental right has been infringed can move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 and High Court under Art. 226 for its enforcement. Such provision is also enumerated in our constitution.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The traditional rule is that the right to move the Supreme Court is only available to those whose fundamental rights are infringed (only exception being the habeas corpus) and the power vested in the Supreme Court can only be exercised for the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens.
The writ under which the remedy is asked must be correlated to one of the fundamental rights sought to be enforced and such remedies must be sought through appropriate proceedings. It is called as rule of locus standi and in our expensive legal system, it is impossible for the lower income groups and poor, needy persons to enforce their right.
Image Source: d31fr2pwly4c4s.cloudfront.net
Therefore our Supreme Court adopted a dynamic approach and the rule of locus standi has been relaxed by it. Now the Supreme Court permits for the enforcement of constitutional and other legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach the court for relief. This new approach is known as ‘Public interest litigation’.
Public interest litigation at the instance of ‘public spirited citizens’ for the enforcement of constitutional and other rights is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement in the country. It is though ‘PIL’ that the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront at the court.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As a result, the entire fabric of law is fast changing. It is not initiated for the benefit of some individual but is for the benefit of a class or group of persons who are victims of exploitation or oppression or who are denied their legal and constitutional rights.
PIL touches the problem of lower society at large and has brought about a structure change.
The PIL has developed its institutional roots by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the judge’s transfer and appointment case which is known as S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others (AIR 1982, SC 149)
In this case, seven members Bench of Supreme Court have firmly established a rule regarding the PIL. The Court held that any member of public having “Sufficient Interest” can approach the court for enforcement of constitutional and legal rights of other person and redress all of a common grievance.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Persons who are helpless victims of an exploitative society, and do not have an easy access to justice gain by it. The Supreme Court responded positively and treated even a letter, a postcard as a writ petition addressed to it, and further the court has developed the scope of ‘PIL’ very much as and when the cases came before the court, they treated letters and even newspaper reports as a writ petition.
It took action by entertaining writ petition filed under Art. 32 of the constitution by public spirited and policy oriented activist person or journalists of any organization and on the basic element, that is, “sufficient interest”.
Thus through ‘PIL’ a member of public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission filed in the Supreme Court.
It was declared by the Supreme Court that ‘PIL’ is a potent weapon for the enforcement of ‘Public duties’ where executive inaction or misdeed resulted in “public enquiry”.
Although ‘PIL’ is not a ‘magic-wand’ to redress all wrongs in society, it has made a benign constitution in many areas through many cases.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1360, 1890) the Supreme Court enlarged the scope of ‘PIL’ by allowing the maintainability of a petition (tinder Article 32 of the Constitution) filed by an advocate based on a newspaper story which exposed the conditions of under trial prisoners in Bihar jails.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others (1984 SC 802) the Supreme Court pointed out on occasion that “in interpreting Art. 32, their approach would not be guided by any verbal or formalistic canons but, by a written method.”
A letter was written by Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an organization and the court treated the letter (without any affidavit) as a writ petition and appointed a commission to make an enquiry and to report to the court about the real situation of Bonded Labour.
The above landmark judgment has opened the doors of the highest court of the nation for the oppressed, exploited and the downtrodden in villages to their fundamental rights. By writing a letter to any judge of the court even without the support of an affidavit, the Court has brought Legal Aid to the doorsteps of the teeming millions of Indians, which the executive has not been able to do despite spending huge amount of money.
PIL has made contributions in many areas as given below:
(1) Prisoner’s Right and Prison Imprisonment Many ‘PILs’ have been filed on this issue and Supreme Court has upheld prisoners’ and detenus’ right to speedy trial, free legal aid, dignified treatment and right against illegal detention, custodial death and torture.
(2) Art. 27. By using this new strategy of Dynamic ‘PIL’ Supreme Court has virtually rendered this fundamental right as enumerated in Article 21 of the Constitution a repository of various human rights and enlarged the scope of Art. 21 as Right to Life includes right to live with human dignity, right to healthy environment, Right to Medical Aid, Right of Privacy, Right to Education, Right against inhuman treatment, etc.
(3) Protection of environment and public health is a constitutional obligation of the state and a ‘PIL’ was filed on this issue by M.C. Mehta.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1087, the Supreme Court has enlarged the scope of PIL by holding a letter as writ petition even if it is written to any individual judge and is without any affidavit because pollution free, healthy environment is a Right of People.
Therefore the court ordered closure of those industries polluting environment by toxic emissions or hazardous effluents ordered for shifting of Industries, and also stated that states as per their obligation, are bound to protect all natural resources of public use. Because this widening approach of ‘PIL’ is mostly concerned with society, it is also called as ‘Social interest litigation’.
The scope of ‘PIL’ has so expanded that even the press report was treated as writ petition by Kerala High Court in Srivastava case and it observed that “the press had now assumed the role of public educator and news items, which were highly essential for educating the public, were important in the public administration.”
This is sufficient to help us understand to the widening scope of PIL.
In Mohanllad Sharma v. State of U.P., (1989) 2 SCC 609, a telegram was sent to the court from the petitioner alleging that his son was murdered by the police in the police lock-up. The telegram was treated as a writ petition by the court and the case was directed to be referred to C.B.I, for a thorough and detailed investigation.
Similarly, there are also some other major cases of ‘PIL’ or social interest litigation like (1) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1759)
(2) Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India (1984 SC 469)
(3) Neerja Chaudhry v. State of M.P. (1984 SC 1099)
(4) Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1987 (1) 153)
(5) Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar (1983 SC 889)
Where Supreme Court through Justice Bhagwati converted a letter into a writ petition and emphasised the importance of ‘PIL’ and enlarged the scope.
In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011) the Supreme Court gave positive effect to the ‘PIL’ made by the petitioner and laid down exhaustive guidelines for preventing sexual harassment. It is an important achievement of ‘PIL’.
There may be numerous circumstances justifying the entertaining of ‘PIL’ but an exhaustive list of all such situations is not possible to note here.
The PIL is not a litigation of an adversary character undertaken for the purpose of holding the State Government or its officers responsible for making reparation. This kind of litigation involves a collaborative and co-operative effort on the part of State Government and its officers, the lawyers appearing in the case and the Bench for the purpose of making human rights meaningful for the weaker sections of the community. It marks a step forward in the direction of socio-economic justice to the deprived and vulnerable section of humanity in the country.
In spite of its beneficial effect, the use of this new strategy by the court for enforcement of various fundamental rights and other legal rights is criticised by many. It is said that by entertaining violation of fundamental right, through a letter, the court will be flooded with litigation resulting in delay in deciding many other important cases.
Secondly, it is pointed out that interference by the court through the ‘PIL’ in the sphere of Executive and Legislature is not justified as it is likely to cause conflict between the three organs of the Government. Thirdly, the court does not have the capacity to enforce its orders and in many cases the conditions have changed and it is said that, court can only give direction to the spirit of law but basic social or economic reforms do not fall within its ambit.
But in spite of such criticism, it is true that public interest litigation serves as a potent weapon against negligent and indifferent behaviour of the law enforcing agencies and the atrocities committed by the protectors of law.
It has also proved to be an effective tool to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses and thereby the Supreme Court has thrown open the portals of courts to the common man. Recently, Jessica Lai, Ruchika cases, Gujarat riots, were treated as PIL.