Law and You > Constitutional Law > Public Interest Litigations

The term “PIL” originated in the United States in the mid-1980s.  It is the abbreviation of “Public interest Litigation”.  Public interest Litigation, means, litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of “Public Interest”, such as pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, constructional hazards, etc. It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public Interest Litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism in case of the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and precede suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual.

According to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, PIL is a process, of obtaining justice for the people, of voicing people’s grievances through the legal process. The aim of PIL is to give to the common people of this country access to the courts to obtain legal redress.

Articles 32 and 228 of the Constitution that give power to any citizen to move the Supreme Court or High Courts wherever there is an infringement of a fundamental right.  There are some various area where a public interest litigation can be filed.

1. Violation of basic human rights of the poor.
2. Content or conduct of government policy.
3. Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty.
4. Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights.

Court Fees

A Court fee of Rs. 50, per respondent (i.e. for each number of opposite party, court fees of RS. 50) has to be affixed on the petition.

History of PILs in India:

In India, the first case of PIL was filed in 1976 named Majdur kaamgar sabha v Abdul bhai Faizulla bhai, 1976 (3) SCC 832. Where Krishna Iyar allowed a group of people to file a petition on behalf of others. The rights of the member were violated Krishna Iyar held either one individual or group of individuals together can come to the court.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. Many have regarded this case as the first proper PIL in India. In this case, the attention of the court was drawn to the incredible situation of undertrials in Bihar who had been detained pending trial for periods far in excess of the maximum sentence for the offences they were charged with. The court not only proceeded to make the right to a speedy trial the central issue of the case but passed the order of general release of close to 40,000 undertrials who had undergone detention beyond such maximum period.

In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 case, the court permitted Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance of “Public spirited citizens” for the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach court for relief.

Justice Bhagwati is known as “Champion of PILs”. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others AIR 1984 SC 802 case, he opined “PIL is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the significant tune of our Constitution. The government and its officers must welcome PIL because it would provide them an accession to examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain, victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community,… when the court entertains PIL, it does not do so in a caviling spirit or in a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programmes, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. The court is thus merely assisting in the realization of the constitutional objective,”

Effective Use of PILs:

A very prominent PIL activist in India is, Mr. M.C. Mehta: a lawyer by profession and a committed environmentalist by choice. From the scores of PILs he filed, it seems his mission in life was to protect the environment. He has single-handedly obtained about 40 landmark judgements and numerous orders from the Supreme Court against environmental offenders. 

In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shiram Food & Fertilizer), (1986) 2 SCC 176 case the Public Interest Litigation was filed, the Court held that the company manufacturing hazardous & lethal chemical and gases pose danger to life and health of workmen & directed them to take all necessary safety measures before re-opening the plant.

In M.C Mehta V. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471, case M. C. Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation against Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. The Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water. Under this order, many tanneries in Kanpur and along the bank of rivers were closed or shifted.

In Parmanand Katara V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039, case the Supreme Court held in the Public Interest Litigation filed by a human right activist fighting for general public interest that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical profession to give medical aid to every injured citizen as soon as possible without waiting for any procedural formalities.

In Council For Environment Legal Action V. Union Of India, (1996) 5 SCC 281, case a Public Interest Litigation filed by the registered voluntary organization regarding economic degradation in the coastal area. Supreme Court issued appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to protect ecology.

Misuse of PILs:

Many times the weapon of PIL is misused by some people. There are various cases in which PIL is misused

In S, P, Gupta v. Union of India (the Judges Transfer Case), AIR 1982, SC 149, case, the Court held Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of the public having sufficient interest for public injury arising from the violation of legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is absolutely necessary for maintaining the Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. It is a settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, heart and with clean objectives.

In Balco Employee’s Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 case the validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Limited was challenged. The Court has held that courts ought to defer to the executive in matters relating to policy.

Issues of PIL:

Issues relating to the following matters can be taken into PIL

1. Basic amenities such as roads, water, medicines, electricity, primary school, primary health centre, bus service, etc,
2. Rehabilitation of displaced persons.
3. Identification and rehabilitation of bonded and child labourers.
4. Illegal detention of arrested persons.
5. Torture of persons in police custody.
6. Custodial deaths.
7. Protection of prisoner’s rights.
8. Jail reform.
9. Speedy trials of under trials.
10. Ragging in colleges.
11. Atrocities by police.
12. Atrocities against SCs/STs.
13. Neglect of inmates of government welfare homes,
14. Children in custody.
15. Adoption of children.
16. Corruption charges against public servants.
17. Maintenance of law and order,
18. Payment of minimum wages.
19. Legal aid to the poor.
20. Starvation deaths.
21. Indecent television programmes.
22. Prohibition.
23. Environmental pollution.
24. Unauthorised eviction,
25. Protection of pavement and slum dwellers.
26. Dowry deaths.
27. Implementation of welfare laws.
28. Reform of illegal social customs such as sati, child marriage, devdasi system, etc.
29. Violation of fundamental rights of the weaker sections.

For More Articles on Constitutional Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here