Evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India: A Comparative Analysis with International Jurisdictions.

Coverage of this article

1. Introduction
- The petitioner must, however, demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the petition is in the public interest and is not a frivolous lawsuit initiated for monetary advantage.

2. Origin and Evolution of PILs in India
- In response to this issue, a committee was formed to develop specific tools and guidelines to address and deter the filing of such baseless petitions.

3. Emergence of Public Interest Litigation
- In an effort to stop further pollution of the Ganga water, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India was filed as a Public Interest Litigation.

4. Conclusion
- Due to the low fixed court fee associated with public interest litigation (PIL), alert citizens of the nation can find a reasonable legal remedy.

Key Takeaways

• Evolution of PIL
• Empowering the Public
• International Comparisons
• Impact and Challenges

Introduction:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a unique judicial innovation that empowers ordinary citizens and organizations to seek redressal for violations of public rights and welfare. Unlike traditional litigation, PIL allows any individual or group to approach the court on behalf of the public interest, even if they have no direct personal interest in the matter. The concept of PIL was first introduced in India in the 1970s and has since gained traction in several other countries.

The idea of a PIL is in line with the principles of quick social justice delivery entrenched in Article 39 A of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India defined "public interest litigation" in the Indian context in the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India. Among the first justices to accept PILs in court were Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. It was even observed that letters and telegrams addressed to the court and heard as PILs were not as difficult to fill out as a typical legal case. PIL is a law that has been established by the court of record. The petitioner must, however, demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the petition is in the public interest and is not a frivolous lawsuit initiated for monetary advantage.

Origin and Evolution of PILs in India

• Early Notions of Locus Standi

Before the advent of PILs in India, the traditional notion of locus standi posed a significant hurdle for public interest litigants. Only individuals whose legal rights were directly affected by a dispute could approach the courts. This often left out marginalized and voiceless sections of society from seeking justice in matters of public importance.

• Landmark Case: The Judge's Transfer Case

The concept of PIL in India took its first steps in the 1970s with the landmark case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (also known as the Judge's Transfer Case). The Supreme Court, in a pioneering move, expanded the scope of locus standi and recognized that any citizen could approach the court to seek enforcement of public duties or constitutional obligations.

Justice S.H. Kapadia, the 38th Chief Justice of India, emphasized that severe penalties would be imposed on litigants who file petitions lacking a genuine purpose or value, commonly referred to as "Frivolous PILs." The High Court bench also raised apprehensions about the misuse of PILs and consequently issued a set of guidelines to be followed by all courts in the country when dealing with such petitions. The surge in Frivolous PILs was a matter of concern even for then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who expressed worry over their misuse. In response to this issue, a committee was formed to develop specific tools and guidelines to address and deter the filing of such baseless petitions.

Emergence of Public Interest Litigation

• Justice P.N. Bhagwati's Role

Justice P.N. Bhagwati played a pivotal role in shaping the PIL jurisprudence in India. In the 1980s, he emphasized that access to justice was a fundamental right and encouraged courts to adopt an active and pro-active role in addressing societal issues.

• Expanding Horizons: PILs for Social Justice

The Indian judiciary began entertaining PILs on a wide range of matters, including environmental protection, prison reforms, child labor, bonded labor, and women's rights. This expansion brought significant social reforms and policy changes.

In Indian Banks Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors., the Supreme Court made the following observation: In a proper case, where the petitioner may have approached the court in her private interest and to address a personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it as a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.So, it is possible to treat a private interest argument as one of public interest.

In an effort to stop further pollution of the Ganga water, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India was filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, who is not a riparian owner but is interested in safeguarding the lives of those who utilize Ganga water, is allowed to petition the court for the execution of statutory restrictions.

Key Features of PIL in India

• Relaxation of Locus Standi Rules

PIL relaxed the rigid locus standi rules and allowed any public-spirited person or organization to file a petition in the public interest, thereby enhancing access to justice.

• Court's Interventionist Approach

The Indian courts adopted an interventionist approach in PIL cases, actively monitoring government actions and ensuring their accountability.

• Collective Redressal Mechanism

PIL provided a collective redressal mechanism, empowering groups of affected individuals to seek justice as a class, promoting inclusivity and efficiency in judicial proceedings.

Comparative Analysis with International PIL Systems

• PIL Mechanisms in the United States

In the United States, the concept of PIL is known as "public interest litigation" or "impact litigation." The class-action lawsuit is a prominent form of PIL, allowing groups of individuals with similar grievances to pursue collective remedies.

Case Law: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - This landmark U.S. Supreme Court case struck down racial segregation in public schools, demonstrating the transformative power of PIL in advancing civil rights.

• PIL Mechanisms in South Africa

South Africa has a robust PIL system, allowing individuals and organizations to protect constitutional rights and hold public authorities accountable.

Case Law: Treatment Action Campaign v. Minister of Health (2002) - In this case, the South African Constitutional Court ordered the government to provide antiretroviral drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, showing the efficacy of PIL in advancing health rights.

• PIL Mechanisms in Brazil

Brazil has embraced a progressive approach to PIL, granting access to justice to those in need through the mechanism of popular actions (ações populares).

Case Law: Tropas e Trabalhadores Pela Cidadania (1996) - The Brazilian Supreme Court used PIL to uphold the rights of rural workers and promote land reform.

Challenges and Criticisms of PIL

• Judicial Overreach

Critics argue that PILs have the potential to blur the lines between the judiciary and executive, leading to judicial overreach and undermining the principle of separation of powers.

• Lack of Representation

PILs, despite their inclusivity, may sometimes fail to represent the true interests of affected communities due to the dominance of certain groups or organizations.

Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation in India has undoubtedly revolutionized the concept of access to justice and played a transformative role in bringing about social and policy changes. While it faces criticisms and challenges, the success of PIL in India and other jurisdictions highlights its crucial role in safeguarding public interests and promoting social justice.

Due to the low fixed court fee associated with public interest litigation (PIL), alert citizens of the nation can find a reasonable legal remedy. Additionally, through PIL, the litigants are able to draw attention to and make progress on more significant societal issues, particularly those related to human rights, consumer welfare, and the environment. As PIL continues to evolve, courts worldwide must strike a delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint, ensuring that this innovative mechanism remains a potent instrument for positive change in society.