Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India allows individuals or groups to seek judicial intervention on matters affecting the public at large, especially for the enforcement of fundamental rights and addressing issues of public concern.

MEANING AND DEFINITION

Public Interest Litigation refers to legal actions initiated in courts to protect or enforce rights that affect the public or a significant segment of it. Unlike traditional litigation, which involves disputes between private parties, PIL is aimed at addressing broader public issues, ensuring justice for marginalized and disadvantaged groups. The Supreme Court of India, in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892, defined PIL as “a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest where the public or a particular class of the public have some interest that affects their legal rights or liabilities.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION

The concept of PIL in India emerged in the late 1970s and gained prominence in the 1980s, inspired by developments in the United States during the 1960s. Pioneering judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati played instrumental roles in its development. A landmark case was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, where the Supreme Court addressed the plight of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, leading to the release of thousands of prisoners and highlighting the need for legal aid and speedy trials. This case marked a significant shift towards a more activist judiciary, willing to entertain petitions on behalf of those unable to approach the courts themselves.

LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURE

PILs can be filed under:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 226, which empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
• Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to public nuisances.

The traditional rule of locus standi, which required the petitioner to have a direct interest in the case, was relaxed for PILs. This relaxation allows public-spirited individuals or organizations to file petitions on behalf of those who are disadvantaged or unable to approach the courts themselves. The Supreme Court, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, recognized this relaxation, stating that “any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty.”

PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

Several legal principles underpin the concept of PIL in India:

• Principle of Judicial Activism: The judiciary takes an active role in ensuring justice, especially when other branches of government fail to protect the rights of citizens.
• Doctrine of Parens Patriae: The state, including the judiciary, has a responsibility to protect the interests of those who cannot protect themselves.
• Principle of Social Justice: Emphasizes the need to address inequalities and ensure that marginalized sections of society have access to justice.

PROCEDURE FOR FILING A PIL

Filing a PIL involves the following steps:

1. Identification of the Issue: The matter should affect the public at large or a significant portion of society.
2. Research and Documentation: Gather substantial evidence to support the claim.
3. Drafting the Petition: Clearly outline the facts, issues, and relief sought.
4. Filing the Petition: Submit the petition in the appropriate court, either the High Court or the Supreme Court, depending on the jurisdiction.
5. Court Proceedings: The court may accept letters or postcards as PILs, especially when filed on behalf of disadvantaged groups.

LANDMARK CASE LAWS

Several landmark judgments have shaped the trajectory of PILs in India:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011: This case addressed sexual harassment at the workplace. Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped for attempting to prevent a child marriage. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the absence of domestic laws on the subject, laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, known as the Vishaka Guidelines.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086: Following the Oleum gas leak from a factory in Delhi, the Supreme Court introduced the principle of “absolute liability” for industries engaged in hazardous activities, holding them strictly liable for any harm resulting from their operations.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802: A petition was filed to address the inhumane conditions of bonded laborers in Haryana. The Supreme Court recognized bonded labor as a violation of fundamental rights and issued directives for their release and rehabilitation.

GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS

To prevent the misuse of PILs, the judiciary has established certain guidelines:

• Bonafide Intent: The petitioner must act in genuine public interest without any personal gain or private motive.
• Prohibition of Frivolous Petitions: Courts discourage PILs filed for publicity or to harass individuals. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, AIR 2010 SC 2550, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to curb frivolous PILs, stating that “the courts should be careful in entertaining PILs and ensure that the petition is filed in public interest and not for personal or political gain.”
• Verification of Facts: Accurate presentation of facts is crucial; misleading the court can lead to penalties.