PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

SC judge Justice Nagarathna flags misuse of PILs

Misuse of PILs: Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna flagged the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), saying they are now viewed with suspicion due to the actions of a few.
Loss of Virtue: Originally a “virtuous weapon” for the weak, PILs are losing their essence and being misused for personal, publicity, and financial interests.
Justice Nagarathna spoke at the release of Law, Justice, Society: Selected Works of Upendra Baxi, acknowledging his role in highlighting PILs as a tool for holding the state accountable.
Call for Genuine PILs: She emphasized the need for real public interest litigation or “social action litigation” as envisioned by Baxi.
Constitutional Perspective: She praised Baxi’s writings for portraying the Indian Constitution as a dynamic document embodying justice, governance, and transformation.

Table of Contents

As per Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (1993), PIL is a legal action initiated for the enforcement of public interest affecting legal rights or liabilities.
Objective: Ensures access to justice for the underprivileged, enabling the judiciary to protect fundamental rights.
Origin: Concept evolved in the USA (1960s) and later adopted in India.
Relaxation of Locus Standi: Any public-spirited citizen or organization can file PIL, even if not directly affected.

Article 32 & Article 226: Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to hear PIL petitions.

Not defined in the Constitution or statute.
Different from traditional litigation: It is non-adversarial and focuses on public welfare.
Proactive role of courts: Judiciary intervenes in policy matters affecting larger social interests.
Flexible procedures: PIL allows liberalized procedural requirements while maintaining judicial decorum.

Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai (1976): Justice Krishna Iyer emphasized PIL’s role in serving the poor.
The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in subsequent cases.
P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981): Opened PIL to individuals and social groups for addressing violations of constitutional rights.

Expanded Article 32: Allowed judicial activism for public welfare.
Access to justice: Enabled marginalized communities to seek redress.
Strengthened judiciary: Empowered courts to take suo motu actions on public matters.
Social and political impact: Addressed key socio-economic and environmental issues.
Rights of the marginalized: Protected bonded laborers, prisoners, slum dwellers, and others.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984): Ordered the release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. (1985): Recognized the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1987): Introduced absolute liability for environmental harm.
PUCL vs. Union of India (1997): Addressed custodial deaths and upheld human dignity under Article 21.
Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): Led to legal frameworks for preventing sexual harassment at workplaces.

PIL remains a powerful tool for justice, but its ethical usage is essential to uphold its true purpose.

Let's Crack
APSC Together