1

Clinical project


























2


Introduction
Public Interest Litigation or PIL is a term which in recent times has
acquired immense popularity, wiped numerous tears, disturbed the
sleep of many, raised a number of eyebrows and faced criticism
simultaneously. Lexically the expression PIL means a legal action
initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or
general interest in which the public or a class or a community have
pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or
liabilities are affected.
1

Social Action Litigation(SAL) and Public Interest Litigation are the
terms which are used interchangeably in India.
2
According to
Professor Upendra Baxi term SAL is more appropriate in the Indian
context.
3

The origin of the concept of PIL can be traced back to 1960s in the
United States of America.
4
Since then the concept has been adopted in
various countries worldwide with changes and modifications best
suited to each country.
In India, being a democracy, judiciary is given a place of great
significance and responsibility as the sentinels of democracy and
upholders of Rule of law in the country. The judiciary, being aware of
the existing inequalities and the resulting injustices therefrom in
Indian society, while discharging its responsibilities towards weaker
sections of society or those unable to place their grievances before
courts due to social or economic disability or simple lack of
awareness relaxed the rule of locus standi through introduction of
PIL in 1970s. Since then PIL has become a highly effective weapon in

1
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 1
2
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 437.
3
Ibid fn. 1
4
Id p 2
3

the armory of law to vindicate the grievances of less privileged and to
ensure justice to the common man. Several landmark judgments and
orders relating to environment protection, labour welfare, child
welfare, human rights etc. have been issued in PIL cases.
However there have been several instances of misuse of PIL. In a
number of cases the brand name of PIL has been used for mischief,
publicity, settling personal scores and political vendetta. In order to
weed out non-genuine PILs courts have laid down guidelines for
distinguishing between publicity, paisa, political and public interest
litigation.
Despite the instances of misuse, PIL today is revered by people as the
panacea of all ills. For people judiciary is the only ray of hope amidst
the darkness of arbitrariness and state excesses.
The courts however need not get swayed and overwhelmed by the
expectations of people and transgress their constitutional boundaries
but need to ensure that PIL as a weapon is used with great care and
circumspection.









4

Meaning Concept and Object of PIL
Public Interest Litigation which means litigation in the interest of public was
innovated by judges to provide equal access to the judicial process to those
who did not have access to the courts for the vindication of their rights due to
socio-economic handicaps.
In Blacks Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), Public Interest is defined as
follows:
Public Interest:- Something in which the public , the community at large,has
some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the
interest of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in
question. Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or
national government
5

In Shrouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition), Public Interest is
defined thus:
PUBLIC INTEREST (1) A matter of public or general interest does not mean
that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or
amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary
interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
6

It was held in Babu Ram Verma v. State of UP
7
the expression Public Interest
means act beneficial to general public, it means action necessarily taken for
public purpose.
In Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
8
, the expression litigation means a legal
action including all proceedings therein initiated in a court of law for the
enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the Expression
PIL means the legal action initiated in the court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected.

5
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 1.
6
Ibid.
7
1971 All LJ 653
8
AIR 1986 SC 180
5

PIL is not a litigation in the real sense of the term.it is totally different from the
ordinary litigation which is essentially of an adversary character. In SAL,
litigation is not considered as a battle to be won but a disease to be cured. It is a
collaborative effort between the petitioner, court and the government and its
instrumentalities to make socio-economic rescuer programmes for the
disadvantaged and deprived meaningful for them. PIL is largely preventive not
punitive, corrective not compensatory and involves wider questions of law and
policy.
Ordinarily the person whose fundamental or other legal right has been violated
may file petition for the enforcement thereof but the Public Interest Litigation is
exception to this general rule.
9

SAL/ PIL strategy has been developed by the court by lowering the threshold
level of locus standi
10
. The traditional view of the locus standi was that only an
aggrieved person who has personally suffered a legal injury by reason of
violation of his right can file a suit for the redress of his grievance.
11
Courts now
have travelled long distance from personal injury standing to public concern
standing in order to allow access to public-spirited individuals, groups and
organisations on behalf of those who because of their poverty, illiteracy and
ignorance cannot come before the court and thus continue to suffer injustice and
deprivation.
The Court while interpreting the words "person aggrieved" in Jasbhai Motibhai
Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Others
12
, observed that, the
traditional rule is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant has
been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even though he
has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the subject-matter. That apart,
in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a party to the
proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and genuine interest in
the subject-matter of the proceedings will be covered by this rule.
There are a plethora of judicial decisions explaining the expression PIL in its
wider connotation in the present day context.

9
Dr. Kailash Rai:Public Interest Lawyering, Legal Aid and Para Legal Services, p 21.
10
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 439.
11
ibid
12
(1976) 1 SCC 671
6

In case of PUDR v. UOI
13
the nature and scope of PIL was elaborated by Justice
Bhagwati as follows:
.Public Interest Litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement
and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who
constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one
making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such
claim or resisting such relief. Public Interest Litigation is brought before the
court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another
as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and
vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal
rights of large number of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or
economically disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed and
unredressed.
It was further observed in this case that:
Public Interest Litigation, as we conceive it is essentially a cooperative or
collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the state or public authority and
the Court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and
privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach
social justice to them. The state or public authority against whom public interest
litigation is brought should be as much interested in ensuring basic human
rights, constitutional as well as legal, to those who are in a socially and
economically disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the public
interest litigation before the Court. The state or public authority which is
arrayed as a respondent in public interest litigation should, in fact, welcome it,
as it would give it an opportunity to right a wrong or to redress an injustice done
to the poor and weaker sections of the community whose welfare is and must be
the prime concern of the State or the public authority.
In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
14
, the Supreme Court has made it clear that
where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any
burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or

13
AIR 1982 SC 1473.
14
AIR 1982SC 149.
7

without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injuryor illegal burden
is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of
poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can
maintain an application for an appropriate direction, orle 226 and in case of
breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons
in the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal
wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.
15

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
16
, Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen
observed that,it is quite obvious , therefore, that in a public interest Litigation
the petitioner and the statae are not supposed to be pitted against each other,
there is no question of one party claiming or asking for relief against the other
and the court deciding between them. Public Interest Litigation is a co-operative
litigationin which the petitioner, the State or public authority and the court are
to co-operate with one another in ensuring that the constitutional obligation
towards those who cannot resort to the courts to protect their constitutional or
legal rights is fulfilled. In such a situation the concept of cause of action
evolved in the background of private law and adversary procedure is out of
place.the only question that can arise is whether the prayers in the petition, if
granted, will ensure such constitutional or legal rights.
17

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. A parent of a State of Medical College
18
, the
Supreme Court said about Public Interest Litigation that,
This is an innovative strategy which has been evolved by the Supreme Court
for the purpose of providing easy access to justice to the weaker sections of
Indian humanity and it is a powerful tool in the hands of public spirited
individuals and social action groups for combating exploitation and injustice
and securing for the under-privileged egments of society their social and
economic entitlements. It is a highly effective weapon in the armory of the
lawfor reaching social justice to the common man.
19


15
Dr. Kailash Rai:Public Interest Lawyering, Legal Aid and Para Legal Services, p 23.
16
AIR 1984 SC 802.
17
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 10.
18
AIR 1985 SC 910.
19
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 17.
8

In Sheela Barse v. Union of India
20
, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in
a Public Interest Litigation, unlike traditional dispute resolution mechanism,
there is no determination or adjudication of individual rights. The proceedings
in a Public Interest Litigation are intended to vindicate and effectuate the public
interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory or
sizeable segments of the society while owing to poverty, ignorance, social and
economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert and quite often not even
aware of those rights. The technique of public interest litigation serves to
provide an effective remedy to enforce these group rights and interests in order
that the public causes are brought before the Courts. The procedural techniques
judicially innovated especially for the public interest action recognizes the
concomitant need to lower the locus standi thresholds so as to enable public
minded citizens or social action groups to act as conduits between these classes
of persons.
21

In Ram Saran Ayotan Parasi v. Union of India
22
, Supreme Court observed that
PIL is for making basic Human Rights meaningful to the deprived and
vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social, economic and
political justice.
23

In case of Lawyers Initiative through R.S. Bains and others v. State of Punjab
through its Chief Secretary and others
24
, the Punjab and Haryana High Court
has made it clear that the Court would allow litigation in public interest if it is
found-
i. That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in
part III of the constitution of India and relief is sought for its
enforcement;
ii. That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects
the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own
interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
iii. That the person or a group of persons were approaching a court in public
interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public
duty or from violation of some provision of the constitutional law;

20
AIR 1988 SC 2211.
21
Dr. Kailash Rai:Public Interest Lawyering, Legal Aid and Para Legal Services, p 20.
22
AIR 1989 SC 356.
23
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 14.
24
AIR 1996 P. & H. 1.
9

iv. That such persons or group of persons is not a busybody or meddlesome
inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of
vindicating their personal vengeance or grievances;
v. That the process of Public Interest Litigation was not being abused by
politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every
default on the part of the state or public authority being not justiciable in
such litigation;
vi. That the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not
remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of the common man in the
institution of the judiciary and the democratic setup of the country;
vii. That the state action was being tried to be covered under carpet and
intended to be thrown out on technicalities;
viii. Public Interest Litigation may be initiated either upon a petition filed or
on the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction
that the information laid before the court was of such a nature which
required examination;
ix. That the person approaching the court has come with clean hands, clean
heart and clean objectives;
x. That before taking any action in public interest the court must be
satisfied that its forum was not being misused by any unscrupulous
litigant, politicians, busy body or persons or groups with mala fide
objective of either vindication of their personal grievances or by
resorting to black-mailing or consideration extraneous to public interest.
In Malik Bros. v. Narendra Dadhich
25
, the Apex Court hela that the real
purpose of PIL/SAL is:
1) Vindication of Rule of Law;
2) Facilitating effective access to justice to socio-economic weaker sections
of the society;
3) Meaningful realization of fundamental rights.
The object of the Public Interest Litigation is to ensure public interest and
protection of legal or constitutional right of disadvantaged and oppressed
groups or individuals and to render social and economic justice to them.
Therefore, there cannot be any reason why in a fit and proper case the Court
would hesitate to entertain a public interest action against any non-

25
(1999) 6 SCC 552.
10

governmental institution or any person invested with statutory or public duties
or public obligations when their omission or commission affects the rights of
disadvantaged groups or individuals who are unable to approach the Court and
legal injury or legal wrong is caused to them.
26






Origin of PIL in India
In India the Supreme Court has been made the guardian and protector of
Constitution. The Constitution has assigned to it the role of ensuring the
supremacy of law in the country. In India until the Public Interest Litigation
was developed by the Supreme Court, justice was only a remote and even
theoretical proposition for the mass of illiterate, underprivileged and exploited
persons in the country.
27
Nor could anyone else take up their case for lack of
locus standi or any direct interest in the matter.
28
Therefore, the summit
judiciary in India, keenly alive to its social responsibility and accountability to
the people of the country developed Public Interest Litigation or Social Action
Litigation by lowering the threshold level of locus standi to allow standing to
any pro bono publico.
The idea of PIL/SAL came from actio popularis of the Roman jurisprudence
which allowed court access to every citizen in matters of public wrongs
29
or to
bring an action of restitution or injunction for the protection of public property
or a religious charitable property. Thus the system of actio popularis of Roman
law can be described as historical basis of the present form of Public Interest
Litigation.
30
The term PIL came to India from American jurisdiction where it
was designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented

26
P. M. Bakshi: Public Interest Litigation, p 16.
27
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 451.
28
Ibid p 452.
29
Ibid p 437.
30
Public Interest Litigation In India: Prospects & Pitfalls, http://thelawgix.com/public-interest-litigation-in-
india-prospects-pitfalls/
11

groups and interests.
31
In A Report by the Council for the Public Interest Law
set up by the Ford Foundation in 1976 in U.S.A., it was stated:-
Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been given to efforts to
provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests.
Such efforts have been undertaken in recognition of the fact that the ordinary
market-place for legal services fails to provide such services to significant
segments of the population and to significant interest. Such groups and interests
include the poor, environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities
and others.
32

In India inspiration to court for the development of this strategy came from the
oath which a judge takes to defend the Constitution wherein socio-economic
justice and equal court access are the prime principles.
33
Public Interest
Litigation entered judicial process in India in 1970. The purpose of PIL was to
increase citizens participation in the judicial process for making access to the
justice delivery system to one who could not otherwise reach court for various
reasons.
The seed of the concept of PIL was initially sown in India by Justice Krishna
Iyyer in 1976 in case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai
34
. In this case
Justice Krishna Iyyer while deciding an industrial dispute in regard to the
payment of bonus, observed:
Our adjective branch of jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with
sophisticated litigants but the rural poor, the urban lay and the weaker societal
segments for whom law will be an added terror if technical misdescriptions and
deficiencies in drafting pleadings and setting out the cause-title create a secret
weapon to non-suit a party....... Test litigations, representative actions, pro bono
publico and like broadened forms of legal proceedings are in keeping with the
current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to
those who wish to bypass the real issue on merits by suspect reliance on
peripheral, procedural shortcomings. Even Article 226, viewed on wider
perspective, may be amenable to ventilation of collective or common
grievances, as distinguished from assertion of individual rights, although the
traditional view, backed by precedents has opted for the narrower alternative.

31
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 437.
32
Dr. Kailash Rai:Public Interest Lawyering, Legal Aid and Para Legal Services, p 20.
33
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 437.
34
(1976) 3 SCC 832
12

Public interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi of our
socio-economic circumstances and conceptual latitudinarianism permits taking
liberties with individualization of the right to invoke the higher courts where
the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they are
weaker. Less litigation, consistent with fair process, is the aim of adjective
law.
Then in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India
35

the terminology Public Interest Litigation was used for the first time. In this
case the expression Epistolary Jurisdiction was also used for the first time by
Justice Krishna Iyyer. It was held in this case:
Public Interest Litigation is part of the process of participate justice and
standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the
judicial door steps.
In Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India
36
, the
Court held:
We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of cause of action,
person aggrieved and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some
jurisdictions.
The Court has observed further:
Our current procedural jurisdiction is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian
mould. It is broad-based and people oriented and envisions access to justice
through class actions, Public Interest Litigation and representative
proceedings.
The concept of Public Interest Litigation was given comprehensive exposition
by Justice Bhagwati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
37
wherein he
observed that:
Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate
class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or
any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision
or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal

35
(1981) 2 SCR 52.
36
A.I.R. 1981 SC 298.
37
A.I.R. 1982 SC 149.
13

burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by
reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of
the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or
writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any
fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court
under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to
such person or determinate class of persons.
Public Interest Litigation, therefore, is a judge-led and judge-induced strategy
and represents high benchmark of judicial creativity and sensitivity to the
problems of the weak and the vulnerable.
38

It may be pointed out that in PIL/SAL the court is not exercising any extra-
constitutional jurisdiction as this strategy is now firmly rooted in Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 provides protection against all
arbitrariness and lawlessness in administrative actions and Article 21 provides
for protection of life which embodies everything that goes for dignified living
including rightful concerns for others. It also encompasses violations of various
directive principles of State policy in the Constitution which are for the benefit
especially of the weaker sections of the society.
Rule of Law demands equal access to justice but in Indian society a vast
majority has no access because of socio-economic handicap. Therefore, PIL
movement strives to create Rule of Law society in India.
39









38
I.P. Massey: Administrative Law, p 437.
39
Ibid p 438.

14









Procedure for filing a petition under PIL
As already mentioned PIL/SAL is different from private litigation, therefore,
courts have developed new procedural norms to suit the requirements of PIL.
For filing a PIL the important prerequisites are:
There must be a public injury and public wrong caused by the wrongful
act or omission of the state or public authority.
It is for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the
community who are downtrodden, ignorant and whose fundamental and
constitutional rights have been infringed.
It must not be frivolous litigation by persons having vested interests.
40

Since the rules of locus standi have been relaxed by the Supreme Court through
its successive judgments a PIL can be filed by:
Any person provided that,
o He is a member of the public, acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public
wrong or public injury.
o He is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.
o His action is not motivated by personal gain or any other oblique
consideration.
A PIL can also be filed by a registered organization.
41


40
Vishnu: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION, http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/PUBLIC-INTEREST-
LITIGATION-3111.asp#.VASJhPmSwm4
15

Any public spirited citizen or a registered organisation can approach the court
and file a PIL in the interests of the public by filing a petition:
1. in Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution. If a Public Interest
Litigation is filed in the Supreme Court, then five sets of petition have to be
filed. Opposite party is served the copy only when notice is issued;
42

2. in High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. If a Public Interest
Litigation is filed in a High court, then two copies of the petition have to be
filed. Also, an advance copy of the petition has to be served on the each
respondent, i.e. opposite party, and this proof of service has to be affixed on the
petition.
43

The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution being wider than Article 32 in the
sense that Article 32 can be invoked only in case of violation of Fundamental
Rights whereas Article 226 can be invoked for other matters such as violation of
breach of legal rights as well.
A PIL can be filed in following ways:
A PIL may be filed like a writ petition.
Sending letter petitions with relevant facts and documents to the Chief
Justice of the concerned court. The matter must be sent by registered post.
By directly filing the PIL in the court through the Free Legal Service
Committee of the court.
Directly filing the case with the help of any PIL lawyer.
Filing the case through NGOs or PIL firms.
Judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on
newspaper articles or letters received.
Public Interest Litigation can be filed against:
State or Central Government, Municipal Authorities but not against any
private party.

41
Advocate Aradhana Singh: Public Interest Litigation, http://www.ngosindia.com/resources/pil.php.
42
Public Interest Litigation:
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawareas/publicinterestlitigation/against.php?Title=Public%20Interest
%20%20%20Litigation&STitle=Against%20Whom%20a%20Public%20Interest%20Litigation%20Can%20be%20Fi
led
43
Public Interest Litigation:
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawareas/publicinterestlitigation/against.php?Title=Public%20Interest
%20%20%20Litigation&STitle=Against%20Whom%20a%20Public%20Interest%20Litigation%20Can%20be%20Fi
led
16

However "Private party" can be included in the public interest litigation as
Respondent, after making concerned state authority a party.
44

A Court fee of Rupees fifty, per respondent i.e. for each number of opposite
party, court fees of Rupees fifty have to be affixed on the petition.


Phases of Public Interest Litigation in India
PIL is being hailed as a strategy to reinforce Rule of Law in the administrative
process and as a unique innovation of judicial statesmanship.
In India Public Interest Litigation can be broadly divided into three phases as
follows:
Phase-I
It deals with cases where directions and orders were passed primarily to protect
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of
the society who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot
approach Courts.
45

During this phase the court laid down certain landmark precedents. Justice
Krishna Iyyer and Justice Bhagwati played a significantly pioneering role
during this initial phase.
In The Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Others
46
,
the Supreme Court made conscious efforts to improve the judicial access for the
masses by relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others
47
, the Court departed from the
traditional rule of standing by authorizing community litigation. The Court
entertained a writ petition from a prisoner, a disinterested party, objecting to the
torture of a fellow prisoner. The Court entertained the writ after reasoning that

44
Public Interest Litigation:
http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawareas/publicinterestlitigation/against.php?Title=Public%20Interest
%20%20%20Litigation&STitle=Against%20Whom%20a%20Public%20Interest%20Litigation%20Can%20be%20Fi
led
45
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (1) OLR (SC)
46
AIR 1976 SC 1455
47
AIR 1978 SC 1675
17

"these 'martyr' litigations possess a beneficent potency beyond the individual
litigant and their consideration on the wider representative basis strengthens the
rule of law". Significantly, citing "people's vicarious involvement in our justice
system with a broad-based concept of locus standi so necessary in a democracy
where the masses are in many senses weak," the Court permitted a human rights
organization to intervene in the case on behalf of the victim.
In Hussainara Khatoon & Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna
48
, an
advocate Kapila Hingorani took the initiative of filing a PIL in 1979 to fight a
lawsuit regarding the condition of the prisoners detained in the Bihar jail, whose
cases were pending in the court. The main thing about this petition was that it
was not filed by any single prisoner, rather it was filed by various prisoners of
the Bihar jail. The case was admitted in the Supreme Court before the bench
headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. In this suit, the Supreme Court upheld that
the prisoners should get benefit of free legal aid and fast hearing and as a result
40,000 prisoners, whose suits were pending in the court, were released from the
jail.
In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration
49
, a prisoner sent a telegram to
a judge complaining of forced handcuff on him and demanded implicit
protection against humiliation and torture. The court gave necessary directions
to relieve the prisoner.
In its far- reaching decision in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights
v. Union of India
50
, the Supreme Court recognised that a third party could
directly petition, whether through a letter or other means, the Court and seek its
intervention in a matter where another party's fundamental rights were being
violated. In this case, adverting to the Constitutional prohibition on "begar", or
forced labour and traffic in human beings, PUDR submitted that workers
contracted to build the large sports complex at the Asian Game Village in Delhi
were being exploited. The Court recognised that "begar" was far more than
compelling someone to work against his or her will, and that work under
exploitative and grotesquely humiliating conditions, or work that was not even
compensated by prescribed minimum wages, was violative of fundamental
rights.

48
AIR 1979 SC
49
AIR 1980 SC 1535
50
1982 (2) S.C.C. 253
18

In Anil Yadav & Others v. State of Bihar and Bachcho Lal Das, Superintendent,
Central Jail, Bhagalpur, Bihar
51
, a petition was filed regarding blinding of
under- trial prisoners at Bhagalpur in the State of Bihar. According to the
allegation, their eyes were pierced with needles and acid poured into them. The
Court had sent a team of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar to visit the
Central Jail, Bhagalpur and submit a report to the Court. The Court passed
comprehensive orders to ensure that such barbarous and inhuman acts are not
repeated.
In Munna & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
52
, the allegation was
that the juvenile under- trial prisoners have been sent in the Kanpur Central Jail
instead of Children's Home in Kanpur and those children were sexually
exploited by the adult prisoners. This Court ruled that in no case except the
exceptional ones mentioned in the Act, a child can be sent to jail. The Court
further observed that the children below the age of 16 years must be detained
only in the Children's Homes or other place of safety. The Court also observed
that "a Nation which is not concerned with the welfare of the children cannot
look forward to a bright future."
In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
53
, Sheela Barse, a journalist,
complained of custodial violence to women prisoners in Bombay. Her letter was
treated as a writ petition and the directions were given by the court.
In Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
54
, two
distinguished law Professors of the Delhi University addressed a letter to the
court regarding inhuman conditions which were prevalent in Agra Protective
Home for Women. The court heard the petition on a number of days and gave
important directions by which the living conditions of the inmates were
significantly improved in the Agra Protective Home for Women.
In Veena Sethi (Mrs.) v. State of Bihar & Others
55
, some prisoners were
detained in jail for a period ranging from 37 years to 19 years. They were
arrested in connection with certain offences and were declared insane at the
time of their trial and were put in Central Jail with directions to submit half-
yearly medical reports. Some were convicted, some acquitted and trials were

51
(1982) 2 SCC 195
52
(1982) 1 SCC 545
53
AIR 1983 SC 378
54
1983 (2) SCC 308
55
AIR 1983 SC 339
19

pending against some of them. After they were declared sane no action for their
release was taken by the authorities. The Court ruled that the prisoners remained
in jail for no fault of theirs and because of the callous and lethargic attitude of
the authorities. Even if they are proved guilty the period they had undergone
would exceed the maximum imprisonment that they might be awarded.
In Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir &
Others
56
, on the basis of a news item in the Indian Express regarding condition
of the construction workers, the Court took notice and observed that the
construction work is a hazardous employment and no child below the age of 14
years can therefore be allowed to be employed in construction work by reason
of the prohibition enacted in Article 24 and this constitutional prohibition must
be enforced by the Central Government.
The case of B. R. Kapoor & Another v. Union of India & Others
57
, relates to
public interest litigation regarding mismanagement of the hospital for mental
diseases located at Shahdara, Delhi. The Court appointed a Committee of
Experts which highlighted the problems of availability of water, existing
sanitary conditions, food, kitchen, medical and nursing care, ill-treatment of
patients, attempts of inmates to commit suicide, death of patients in hospital,
availability of doctors and nurses etc. The Court went on to recommend the
Union of India to take over the hospital and model it on the lines of NIMHANS
at Bangalore.
In Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa & Others
58
, the
Court gave directions that for contravention of human rights and fundamental
freedoms by the State and its agencies, a claim for monetary compensation in
petition under Article 32 of 226 is justified.
In Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India & Others
59
, the
Court expressed serious concern about the violence against women. The Court
gave significant directions and observed that compensation for victims shall be
awarded by the court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place. The Board
will take into account pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of earnings due

56
AIR 1984 SC 177
57
AIR 1990 SC 752
58
AIR 1993 SC 1960
59
(1995) 1 SCC 14
20

to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth if this occurred as a result of the
rape.
In Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam & Others
60
, the Court held that
handcuffing and tying with ropes is inhuman and in utter violation of human
rights guaranteed under the international law and the law of the land. The Court
observed as under:
"The handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes of the patient-prisoners who
are lodged in the hospital is, the least we can say, inhuman and in utter violation
of the human rights guaranteed to an individual under the international law and
the law of the land. We are, therefore, of the view that the action of
the respondents was wholly unjustified and against law. We direct that the
detenus - in case they are still in hospital - be relieved from the fetters and the
ropes with immediate effect."
In M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
61
, the Court was dealing with
the cases of child labour and the Court found that the child labour emanates
from extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for gainful employment and
intermittency of income and low standards of living. The Court observed that it
is possible to identify child labour in the organized sector, which forms a
minuscule of the total child labour, the problem relates mainly to the
unorganized sector where utmost attention needs to be paid.
In D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
62
, the Court observed that the custodial
death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the
rule of law. The rights inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution
require to be jealously and scrupulously protected. The expression "life or
personal liberty" in Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and
thus it would also include within itself a guarantee against torture and assault by
the State or its functionaries. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 cannot
be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in custody,
except according to the procedure established by law by placing such
reasonable restrictions as are permitted by law. The Court gave very significant
directions which are mandatory for all concerned to follow.


60
(1995) 3 SCC 743
61
(1996) 6 SCC 756
62
(1997) 1 SCC 416
21

In Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others
63
, the Court gave
directions regarding enforcement of the fundamental rights of the working
women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court gave
comprehensive guidelines and norms and directed for protection and
enforcement of these rights of the women at their workplaces.
In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India & Others
64
, a public interest litigation
was filed, when 93 children were burnt alive in a fire at a private school in
Tamil Nadu. This happened because the school did not have the minimum
safety standard measures. The court, in order to protect future tragedies in all
such schools, gave directions that it is the fundamental right of each and every
child to receive education free from fear and in security and safety, hence the
Government should implement National Building Code and comply with the
said orders in constructions of schools for children.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts earned great respect and acquired great
credibility in the eyes of public because of their innovative efforts to protect and
preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging to the poor and
marginalized sections of the society.
65





Phase-II
The second phase of public interest litigation started sometime in the 1980's and
it related to the courts' innovation and creativity, where directions were given to
protect ecology and environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains,
rivers, historical monuments etc. The Supreme Court under Article 32 and the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution passed a number of orders and
directions in this respect.
One of the earliest cases brought before the Supreme Court related to Oleum
gas leakage in Delhi well known as M.C. Mehta & Another v. Union of India

63
(1997) 6 SCC 241
64
(2009) 6 SCC 398
65
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (1) OLR (SC)
22

& Others
66
. The court in this case clearly laid down that an enterprise which is
engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a
potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory
and residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non- delegable duty
to the community to ensure that no such harm results to anyone on account of
hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken. The court directed that the enterprise must adopt highest standards
of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must
be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to
the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm
occurred without any negligence on its part.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun & Others v. State of
U.P. & Others
67
, the Supreme Court ordered closure of all lime-stone quarries
in the Doon Valley taking notice of the fact that lime-stone quarries and
excavation in the area had adversely affected water springs and environmental
ecology. While commenting on the closure of the lime-stone quarries, the court
stated that this would undoubtedly cause hardship to owners of the lime-stone
quarries, but it is the price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding
the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance
of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle,
homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and
environment.
Environmental PIL has emerged because of the court's interpretation of Article
21 of the Constitution. The court in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh
Samiti v. State of U.P. & Others
68
, observed that every citizen has fundamental
right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anything which endangers or impairs by
conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of
life and living by the people is entitled to take recourse to Article 32 of the
Constitution.
The court in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others
69
, observed that under
Article 21 of the Constitution people have the right of enjoyment of pollution

66
AIR 1987 SC 1086
67
AIR 1985 SC 652
68
AIR 1990 SC 2060
69
AIR 1991 SC 420
23

free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs
that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to
Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which
may be detrimental to the quality of life.
The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others
70
, relates to pollution
caused by the trade effluents discharged by tanneries into Ganga River in
Kanpur. The court called for the report of the Committee of experts and gave
directions to save the environment and ecology. The Court held that in the
present case the petitioner is a person interested in protecting the lives of the
people who make use of the water flowing in the river Ganga and his right to
maintain the petition cannot be disputed. The Court further held that the
nuisance caused by the pollution of the river Ganga is a public nuisance, which
is wider spread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be
reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as
distinct from the community at large. The petition was entertained as a Public
Interest Litigation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
petitioner was held to be entitled to move the Supreme Court in order to enforce
the statutory provisions which impose duties on the municipal authorities and
the Boards constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Others
71
, the court ruled
that precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the
environmental law of the country. The court declared Articles 47, 48A and
51A(g) to be part of the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the
environment.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others
72
, this court observed that the
effluent discharged in river Ganga from a tannery is ten times noxious when
compared with the domestic sewage water which flows into the river from any
urban area on its banks. The court further observed that the financial capacity of
the tanneries should be considered as irrelevant without requiring them to
establish primary treatment plants. Just like an industry which cannot pay
minimum wages to its workers cannot be allowed to exist, a tannery which

70
(1988) 1 SCC 471
71
AIR 1996 SC 2715
72
AIR 1988 SC 1037
24

cannot set up a primary treatment plant cannot be permitted to continue to be in
existence for the adverse effect on the public at large.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Others
73
the
main grievance in the petition wass that a notification dated 19.2.1991 declaring
coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zones which regulates the activities in
the said zones had not been implemented or enforced. This had led to continued
degradation of ecology in the said coastal areas. The court observed that while
economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of
ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the
same time, the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not
hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment
must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the
cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while
taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.

In S. Jagannath v. Union of India & Others
74
, the Court dealt with a public
interest petition filed by the Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organization
working for the upliftment of the weaker section of society, wherein the
petitioner sought the enforcement of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification
dated 19.2.1991 and stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn
farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. This Court passed significant
directions as under:
1. The Central Government shall constitute an authority conferring on the said
authority all the powers necessary to protect the ecologically fragile coastal
areas, seashore, waterfront and other coastal areas and specially to deal with
the situation created by the shrimp culture industry in coastal States.
2. The authority so constituted by the Central Government shall implement "the
Precautionary principle" and "the Polluter Pays" principles.
3. The shrimp culture industry/the shrimp ponds are covered by the prohibition
contained in para 2(i) of the CRZ Notification. No shrimp culture pond can be
constructed or set up within the coastal regulation zone as defined in the
CRZ notification. This shall be applicable to all seas, bays, estuaries, creeks,

73
(1996) 5 SCC 281
74
(1997) 2 SCC 87
25

rivers and backwaters. This direction shall not apply to traditional and improved
traditional types of technologies (as defined in Alagarswami report) which are
practised in the coastal low lying areas.
4. All acquaculture industries/shrimp culture industries/shrimp culture ponds
operating/set up in the coastal regulation zone as defined under the CRZ
Notification shall be demolished and removed from the said area before March
31, 1997.
5. The agricultural lands, salt pan lands, mangroves, wet lands, forest lands,
land for village common purpose and the land meant for public purposes shall
not be used/converted for construction of the shrimp culture ponds.
6. No aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds shall
be constructed/set up within 1000 meter of Chilka lake and Pulicat lake
(including Bird Sanctuaries namely Yadurapattu and Nelapattu).
7. Aquaculture industry/shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds already
operating and functioning in the said area of 1000 meter shall be closed and
demolished before March 31, 1997.
8. The Court also directed that the shrimp industries functioning within 1000
meter from the Coastal Regulation Zone shall be liable to compensate the
affected persons on the basis of the "polluter pays" principle.
9. The authority was directed to compute the compensation under two heads
namely, for reversing the ecology and for payment to individuals.
10. The compensation amount recovered from the polluters shall be deposited
under a separate head called "Environment Protection Fund" and shall be
utilised for compensating the affected persons as identified by the authority and
also for restoring the damaged environment.
The Court also granted substantial costs to the petitioners.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others
75
, in order to preserve and protect the
ancient monument Taj Mahal from sulphur dioxide emission by industries near
Taj Mahal, the court ordered 299 industries to ban the use of coke/coal. The

75
AIR 1997 SC 734
26

court further directed them to shift-over to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or
re-locate them.
In A. P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M. V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Others
76
, the
court in this case gave emphasis that the directions of the court should meet the
requirements of public interest, environmental protection, elimination of
pollution and sustainable development. While ensuring sustainable
development, it must be kept in view that there is no danger to the environment
or to the ecology.
In another important decision the Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal
Nath & Others
77
, was of the opinion that Articles 48A and 51-A (g) have to be
considered in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution. Any disturbance of the
basic environment elements, namely air, water and soil, which are necessary for
"life", would be hazardous to "life" within the meaning of Article 21. In the
matter of enforcement of rights under Article 21, the Court, besides enforcing
the provisions of the Acts referred to above, has also given effect to
Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 and has held that if those rights
are violated by disturbing the environment, it can award damages not only for
the restoration of the ecological balance, but also for the victims who have
suffered due to that disturbance. In order to protect the "life", in order to protect
"environment" and in order to protect "air, water and soil" from pollution. The
court also laid emphasis on the principle of Polluter-pays. According to the
court, pollution is a civil wrong. It is a tort committed against the community as
a whole. A person, therefore, who is guilty of causing pollution has to pay
damages or compensation for restoration of the environment and ecology.
In Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti & Others
78
, while maintaining the
balance between economic development and environmental protection, the
court observed as under:
Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration giving broad
parameters and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its
environment. Of these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are of
relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides that the natural resources
of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna especially

76
(1999) 2 SCC 718
77
(2000) 6 SCC 213
78
AIR 2004 SC 1834
27

representative samples of natural eco-systems must be safeguarded for the
benefit of present and future generations through careful planning
and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the 4th principle says "man
has special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wild
life and its habitat which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of
adverse factors. Nature conservation including wild life must, therefore, receive
importance in planning for economic developments". These two principles
highlight the need to factor in considerations of the environment while
providing for economic development. The need for economic development has
been dealt with in Principle 8 where it is said that "economic and social
development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and
working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are
necessary for improvement of the quality of life"."
In In Re. Noise Pollution
79
, the Court was dealing with the issue of noise
pollution. The Court was of the opinion that there is need for creating general
awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. Particularly, in our
country the people generally lack consciousness of the ill effects which noise
pollution creates and how the society including they themselves stand to benefit
by preventing generation and emission of noise pollution.
In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa &
Others
80
, the Court observed that there has to be balance between sustainable
development and environment. The Court observed that before acquisition of
lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on
environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for
development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment; State
Industrial Areas Development Board to incorporate the condition of allotment to
obtain clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board before the
land is allotted for development. The said directory condition of allotment of
lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be
sanctioned in future.
The courts because of vast destruction of environment, ecology, forests, marine
life, wildlife etc. gave directions in a large number of cases in the larger public
interest. The courts made a serious endeavour to protect and preserve ecology,
environment, forests, hills, rivers, marine life, wildlife etc.

79
AIR 2005 SC 3136
80
AIR 2006 SC 2038
28

Phase-III:
It deals with the directions issued by the Courts in maintaining the probity,
transparency and integrity in governance.
81

The probity in governance is a sine qua non for an efficient system of
administration and for the development of the country and an important
requirement for ensuring probity in governance is the absence of corruption. In
the 1990's, the Supreme Court expanded the ambit and scope of public interest
litigation further. The High Courts also under Article 226 followed the Supreme
Court and passed a number of judgments, orders or directions to unearth
corruption and maintain probity and morality in the governance of the State.
In case of Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another
82
the petitioner,
who was a journalist, filed a public interest litigation. According to him, the
prime investigating agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and the
Revenue authorities failed to perform their legal obligation and take appropriate
action when they found, during investigation with a terrorist, detailed accounts
of vast payments, called `Jain diaries', made to influential politicians and
bureaucrats and direction was also sought in case of a similar nature that may
occur hereafter. A number of directions were issued by the Supreme Court. The
Court in that case observed that "it is trite that the holders of public offices are
entrusted with certain power to be exercised in public interest alone and,
therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people."
In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India & Another
83
, two writ
petitions were filed in public interest by the petitioner calling in the question of
decision of the government to sell majority of shares in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to private
parties without Parliamentary approval or sanction as being contrary to and
violative of the provisions of the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertaking in India)
Act, 1974, the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 and
Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and all the
undertakings in India for Caltex India Limited) Act, 1977. The court upheld the
petitions until the statutes are amended appropriately.


81
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (1) OLR (SC)
82
AIR 1998 SC 889
83
AIR 2003 SC 3277
29

Another significant case is Rajiv Ranjan Singh Lalan & Another v. Union of
India & Others
84
. This public interest litigation relates to the large scale
defalcation of public funds and falsification of accounts involving hundreds of
crores of rupees in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Bihar.
It was said that the respondents had interfered with the appointment of the
public prosecutor. This court gave significant directions in this case.
In yet another case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others
85
, a project
known as "Taj Heritage Corridor Project" was initiated by the Government of
Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was
to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort
and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas,
shops and amusement activities. The Court directed for a detailed enquiry which
was carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On the basis of
the CBI report, the Court directed registration of FIR and made further
investigation in the matter. The court questioned the role played by the
concerned Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the
Chief Minister, Government of Uttar Pradesh. By the intervention of this Court,
the said project was stalled.
In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others
86
, in another public interest
litigation, a question was raised before the court whether the Apex Court should
consider the correctness of the order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh
refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister and
Environment Minister after they were found responsible in `Taj Heritage
Corridor Project". It was held that the judiciary can step in where it finds the
actions on the part of the legislature or the executive to be illegal or
unconstitutional.
In case of Centre for PIL v. Union of India
87
, the Court held that wherever a
contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given the public authority must
adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that all eligible
persons get a fair opportunity of competition. To put it differently the State and
its agencies/instrumentalities must always adopt a rational method for disposal
of public property and no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthy

84
(2006) 6 SCC 613
85
(2007) 1 SCC 110
86
(2007) 12 SCALE 91
87
(2012) 3 SCC 1
30

applicants. When it comes to alienation of scarce natural resources like
spectrum etc., the State must always adopt a method of auction by giving wide
publicity so that all eligible persons may participate in the process. Any other
methodology for disposal of public property and natural resources/national
assets is likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in
garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional
ethos and values.
In case of PUCL v. Union of India
88
, the Court held that f or democracy to
survive, it is essential that the best available men should be chosen as peoples
representatives for proper governance of the country. This can be best achieved
through men of high moral and ethical values, who win the elections on a
positive vote. Thus in a vibrant democracy, the voter must be given an
opportunity to choose none of the above (NOTA) button, which will indeed
compel the political parties to nominate a sound candidate. By providing NOTA
button in the EVMs, it will accelerate the effective political participation in the
present state of democratic system and the voters in fact will be empowered. We
are of the considered view that in bringing out this right to cast negative vote at
a time when electioneering is in full swing, it will foster the purity of the
electoral process and also fulfil one of its objective, namely, wide participation
of people.
These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court and the High Courts
broadened the scope of public interest litigation and also entertained petitions to
ensure that in governance of the State, there is transparency and no extraneous
considerations are taken into consideration except the public interest.








88
September 2013.
31

Pitfalls of Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation has now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law. Now the gates of the Court are open to the poor, the
unaware and the uneducated with the consequence that their cases are coming
before the Court through PIL. The have-nots and the handicapped, the poor and
the browbeaten have begun to believe that there is an institution which could be
approached by them for redress against refutation of their rights and to seek
fortification against Governmental lawlessness and executive deviance.
However, over a period of time with the development of Public Interest
Litigation its pitfalls and drawbacks have also come to surface. Public Interest
Litigation has generally drawn criticism because of the following drawbacks:-
Abuse of PIL
From time to time, it has been urged that the dilution of the requirement of locus
standi has opened up the floodgates for frivolous cases that either involve the
litigants private interests or are vehicles for gaining publicity rather than
seeking justice for disadvantaged groups.
89
The genuine causes and cases of
public interest have in fact receded to the background and irresponsible PIL
activists all over the country have started to play a major but not a constructive
role in the arena of litigation. Many of the PIL activists in the
country have found the PIL as a handy tool of harassment since frivolous cases
could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil
litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the victims of stay orders
obtained in the so-called PILs. Just as a weapon meant for defence can be used
equally effectively for offence, the lowering of the locus standi requirement has
permitted privately motivated interests to pose as public interests. The abuse of
PIL has become more rampant than its use and genuine causes either receded to
the background or began to be viewed with the suspicion generated by spurious
causes mooted by privately motivated interests in the disguise of the so-called
public interests.
90
Every matter of public interest cannot be the basis of a PIL,
e.g. increase in the price of onions or in railway fares or the dilapidated
condition of railway stations or the Red Fort or trains not running on time. Over

89
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan: GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/8%5B1%5D.10.08_singapore_-
_growth_of_public_interest_litigation.pdf
90
Geetanjali Jha: Problems facing Public Interest Litigation in India,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pil_ind.htm
32

the years, PIL has degenerated into Private Interest Litigation, Political Interest
Litigation, and above all, Publicity Interest Litigation. Weakness for publicity
affects judges, lawyers and litigants alike.
Judicial Overreach
One of the major criticisms of PIL is that in the garb of PIL Court is usurping
the powers of executive and the legislature. The framers of Indian constitution
did not incorporate a strict doctrine of separation of powers but envisaged a
system of checks and balances. Policy-making and implementation of policy are
conventionally regarded as the exclusive domain of the executive and the
legislature, with judiciary enforcing the law.
91

PIL in practice, however, tends to narrow the divide between the roles of the
various organs of government. The court has sometime even obliterated the
distinction between law and policy. The law and policy divide was obliterated
in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
92
which was a PIL concerning sexual
harassment of women at work place. A significant feature of this decision was
the courts readiness to step in where the legislature had not. The court declared
that till the legislature enacted a law consistent with the convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to which India was
a signatory, the guidelines set out by the court would be enforceable.
93
Other
policy matters in which the Courts have stepped in are Age and other criteria for
nursery school admissions, unauthorised schools, number of free seats in
schools, supply of drinking water in schools, number of free beds in hospitals
on public land, use and misuse of ambulances, requirements for establishing a
world class burns ward in a hospital, the kind of air Delhites breath, begging in
public, the use of sub-ways, the state of buses, the legality of constructions in
Delhi, the size of speed-breakers on Delhi roads, auto-rickshaw over-charging,
growing frequency of road accidents and enhancing of road fines etc. Hence
PIL has become a catch all jurisdiction and is often accused of transgressing

91
Ashok H. Desai and S. Muralidhar: Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems,
http://www.ielrc.org/content/a0003.pdf.
92
(1997) 6 SCC 241.
93
Geetanjali Jha: Problems facing Public Interest Litigation in India,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/pil_ind.htm
33

into areas which the judiciary is not meant to get into or not equipped to get
into.
94

However, PILs that have sought prohibition on sale of liquor or recognition of
a particular language as the national language or the introduction of a uniform
civil code have been rejected on the basis that these were matters of policy.
Thus, while in some cases, the court has expressed its reluctance to step into
the legislative field, in others it has laid down detailed guidelines and explicitly
formulated policy.
Therefore, one of the major problems of PIL is that the Courts have not adopted
a uniform and consistent approach in such matters. There are no clear guidelines
as to when the court would or would not interfere and the extent of intervention.
Indeed it can turn on the personal whims and fancies of the Judge and this is
what makes it Fraught.
95

Tremendous increase in Litigation
Public Interest Litigation has also been criticised on the ground that it would
result in the tremendous increase in the litigation.
96
In fact, by allowing
frivolous PIL plaintiffs to waste the time and energy of the courts, the judiciary
might be violating the right to speedy trial of those who are waiting for the
vindication of their private interests through conventional adversarial
litigation.
97

A related problem is that the courts are taking unduly long time in finally
disposing of even PIL cases. This might render many leading judgments merely
of an academic value.
98

Symbolic Justice
Another major criticism of PIL in India has been of PIL cases often doing only
symbolic justice. Judiciary is often unable to ensure that its guidelines or

94
Sumeet Kachwaha: India: Public Interest Litigation In India Pitfalls Facing Multinationals,
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/81730/Public+Sector+Government/Public+Interest+Litigation+In+India+Pitf
alls+Facing+Multinationals

95
ibid
96
Chintamani Rout: Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Eficacy and Dangers, http://rostrumlegal.com/blog/public-
interest-litigation-pil-eficacy-and-dangers-by-chintamani-rout/
97
Surya Deva: Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047384.pdf.
98
Ibid.
34

directions in PIL cases are complied with or it is unable to supervise the
effective implementation of its orders. So, the PIL might dupe disadvantaged
sections of society in believing that justice has been done to them, but without
making a real difference to their situation.
A judicial system can suffer no greater lack of credibility than a perception that
its order can be flouted with impunity. Upon considering the issues at hand,
judges do not consider whether the orders they intend to pass can be realistically
implemented. It serves no purpose to issue some high profile mandamus or
declaration that can remain only on paper. It is counterproductive as it leads to
people saying The Supreme Court has not been able to do anything or worse.
It is of cardinal importance to the confidence that people have in the Court that
its orders are implicitly and promptly obeyed and is, therefore, of cardinal
importance that orders that are incapable of obedience and enforcement are not
made.
99

PIL also drew criticism in the area of Epistolary Jurisdiction where the
affected parties address letters directly in the name of judges of the Supreme
Court and they convert the letters in to the writ petitions. This practice has been
criticised on the ground that there would be a danger of litigants choosing a
judge and in turn judges choosing their litigants.
100
The suo motu action by
judges based upon the newspapers has also been criticised on the ground that
thereby the judge assumes the role of advocate as well and thus, acting against
the judicial precept no- body should be a judge in his own cause.
101

Public Interest Litigation has now become a routine affair and therefore, now
has lost its effectiveness before bench, bar and the masses.






99
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan: GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/8%5B1%5D.10.08_singapore_-
_growth_of_public_interest_litigation.pdf
100
Dr. Kailash Rai:Public Interest Lawyering, Legal Aid and Para Legal Services, p 24.
101
Id p 25.
35

Addressing the shortcomings of PIL
Unfortunately, of late, PIL, an important jurisdiction which has been carefully
carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is
being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives and has
drawn criticism due to various shortcomings which have gradually surfaced
with the development of PIL jurisdiction in India.
However, the Courts in India have taken effective steps to prevent and cure its
abuse on the basis of monetary and non- monetary directions, laid down in
various cases, to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger
interest of the people of the country.
The Supreme Court broadly tried to curtail the frivolous public interest
litigation petitions by two methods- monetary and non-monetary.
In S. P. Gupta v. Union of India
102
the court cautioned that important
jurisdiction of public interest litigation may be confined to legal wrongs and
legal injuries for a group of people or class of persons. It should not be used for
individual wrongs because individuals can always seek redress from legal aid
organizations. The Court laid down that the liberal standard makes it critical to
limit standing to individuals acting bona fide. To avoid entertaining frivolous
and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL, the Supreme Court has rejected
awarding standing to "meddlesome interlopers" and interveners bringing public
interest litigation for personal gain.
In Charan Lal Sahu & Others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another
103
the Supreme
Court observed that, "we would have been justified in passing a heavy order of
costs against the two petitioners" for filing a "light-hearted and indifferent" PIL
petition. However, to prevent "nipping in the bud a well-founded claim on a
future occasion," the Court opted against imposing monetary costs on the
petitioners." In this case, this Court concluded that the petition was careless,
meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered
the Registry to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the
Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from
entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an
advocate in this case.

102
AIR 1982 SC 149.
103
AIR 1984 SC 309.
36

In Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P.
104
, the Court
withheld standing from the applicant on grounds that the applicant brought the
suit motivated by enmity between the parties. The court again emphasized that
Article 32 is a great and salutary safeguard for preservation of fundamental
rights of the citizens. The superior courts have to ensure that this weapon under
Article 32 should not be misused or abused by any individual or organization.
Thus, the Supreme Court has attempted to create a body of jurisprudence that
accords broad enough standing to admit genuine PIL petitions, but nonetheless
limits standing to thwart frivolous and vexations petitions.
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Others
105
, the court rightly cautioned that
expanded role of courts in modern `social' state demand for greater judicial
responsibility. Court held that PIL has given new hope of justice-starved
millions of people of this country and therefore, court must encourage genuine
PIL and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.
In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Others
106
, the Court warned that it is of
utmost importance that those who invoke the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a
waiver of the locus standi rule must exercise restraint in moving the Court by
not plunging in areas wherein they are not well-versed.
In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
107
, the Court observed
that, When a petition is filed as a public litigation the Court must satisfy
itself that the party which has brought the litigation is litigating bona fide for
public good. The public interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for
attaining private ends of a third party or of the party bringing the petition
Even when a public interest litigation is entertained, the Court must be careful
to weigh conflicting public interest before intervening.
In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Others
108
, this Court
recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances of abuse
of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number of
strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. Firstly,
the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals "acting bonafide."

104
AIR 1990 SC 2060
105
(1992) 4 SCC 305
106
AIR 1997 SC 272.
107
(1999) 1 SCC 492
108
AIR 2002 SC 350
37

Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of "exemplary
costs" as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective
in entertaining the public interest litigations.
In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Another v. C.K. Rajan &
Others
109
, it was reiterated that the court must ensure that its process is not
abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process, the court would be justified
in insisting on furnishing of security before granting injunction in appropriate
cases. The courts may impose heavy costs to ensure that judicial process is not
misused.
In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
110
, the Court
held that, when there is material to show that a petition styled as a public
interest litigation is nothing but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said
petition is to be thrown out. The Court observed that Public Interest Litigation
which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law
should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or
"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation". If not
properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and
genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of
knight errant or poke ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a
person or a body of persons to further his or their personal causes or satisfy his
or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice should not be allowed to
be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary
jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can
approach the Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine
infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration. . A writ petitioner who comes to
the Court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands like
any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean
objective.

109
(2003) 7 SCC 546
110
AIR 2004 SC 280
38

In Sanjeev Bhatnagar v. Union of India & Others
111
, the Court went a step
further by imposing a monetary penalty against an Advocate for filing a
frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that the petition was
devoid of public interest, and instead labelled it as "publicity interest litigation."
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.10, 000/-.
Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Others
112
, the
Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's monetary penalty against a member of
the Bar for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL petition. The Court found that
the petition was nothing but a camouflage to foster personal dispute. Observing
that no one should be permitted to bring disgrace to the noble profession, the
Court concluded that the imposition of the penalty of Rupees 25,000 by the
High Court was appropriate. Evidently, the Supreme Court has set clear
precedent validating the imposition of monetary penalties against frivolous and
vexatious PIL petitions, especially when filed by Advocates. The court
expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of
public interest litigation and observed that the public interest litigation is a
weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the
judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of
public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is
not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for
delivering social justice to the citizens. The court must not allow its process to
be abused for oblique considerations. The stream of justice should not be
allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants. The Court encouraged the
imposition of a non-monetary penalty against a PIL petition filed by a member
of the bar. The Court directed the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to ensure
that no member of the Bar becomes party as petitioner or in aiding and/or
abetting files frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand name of Public
Interest Litigation.
This direction impels the Bar Councils and Bar Associations to disbar members
found guilty of filing frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions.
In Neetu v. State of Pubjab & Others
113
, the Court concluded that it is necessary
to impose exemplary costs to ensure that the message goes in the right direction
that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.

111
AIR 2005 SC 2841
112
(2005) 1 SCC 590
113
AIR 2007 SC 758
39

Further the Court observed that under the guise of redressing a public grievance
the public interest litigation should not encroach upon the sphere reserved by
the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature
In Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others
114
, this Court
observed that, it is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery
proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, the time
which otherwise could have been spent for disposal of cases of the genuine
litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable
concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy, whose fundamental rights are infringed
and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard;
yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with
legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth
hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to
death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life
imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from
undue delay in service matters -government or private, persons awaiting the
disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized
collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years
with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances
redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious
interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or
private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their
faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by
filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable
time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors
of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the
administration of our judicial system."
The Court cautioned by observing that, Public interest litigation is a weapon
which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to
be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an
ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is

114
AIR 2008 SC 913
40

to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation
should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at
redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or
founded on personal vendetta.
Laying down the guidelines regarding the admissibility of PILs the Court held
that the Court has to be satisfied about
(a) the credentials of the applicant;
(b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him;
(c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should
show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests;
(i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations
besmirching the character of others; and
(ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to
assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
The Court held that in such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal.
It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public
grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to
the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing
with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as
public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They
pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of
the public or even of their own to protect.
In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others
115
, the Court held;
In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become imperative
to issue the following directions:-
(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively
discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

115
2010 (1) OLR (SC)
41

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing
with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to
properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the
PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.
The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of
the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
court immediately thereafter.
(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before
entertaining a P.I.L.
(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the
contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved
before entertaining the petition.
(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public
interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at
redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure
that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the
public interest litigation.
(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary
costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
The court directed that Copies of this judgment be sent to the Registrar Generals
of all the High Courts within one week.
A more systematic, step that the Supreme Court has taken was to compile a set
of Guidelines to be Followed for Entertaining Letters/Petitions Received by it
as PIL. The Guidelines, which were based on the full-court decision of
42

December 1, 1988, have been modified on the orders/directions of the Chief
Justice of India in 1993 and 2003.
116

The Guidelines provide that ordinarily letter/petitions falling under one of the
following ten categories will be entertained as PIL:
117

(1) bonded labour matters;
(2) neglected children;
(3) non-payment of minimum wages;
(4) petitions from jails complaining of harassment, death in jail, speedy trial as a
fundamental right, etc.;
(5) petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police
and death in police custody;
(6) petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride,
bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.;
(7) petitions complaining harassment or torture of persons belonging to
scheduled caste and scheduled tribes;
(8) petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological
balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques,
forest and wildlife and other matters of public importance;
(9) petitions from riot-victims; and
(10) family pensions.
The Guidelines also prescribe that petitions related to certain matterssuch as
related to landlord-tenant matters, service matters and admission to educational
institutionswill not be admitted as PIL.
The PIL Cell has been entrusted the task of screening letters/petitions as per
these Guidelines and then placing them before a judge to be nominated by the
Chief Justice of India. As noted before, in view of the epistolary jurisdiction
developed by the courts, PIL petitions need not follow the required format; a

116
Surya Deva: Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047384.pdf.

117
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/circular/guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf
43

mere postcard could suffice. However, in order to balance this exceptional
power/procedure, the Guidelines were amended in 2003 to provide that it, may
be worthwhile to require an affidavit to be filed in support of the statements
contained in the petition whenever it is not too onerous a requirement.
118

Public Interest Litigants, all over the country, have not taken very kindly to
above directions by Courts. They do fear that this will sound the death-knell of
the people friendly concept of PIL. However, bona fide litigants of India have
nothing to fear. Only those PIL activists who prefer to file frivolous complaints
will have to pay compensation to the opposite parties. It is actually a welcome
move because no one in the country can deny that even PIL activists should be
responsible and accountable. Anyway, PIL now does require a complete rethink
and restructuring as overuse and abuse of PIL can only make it stale and
ineffective. Since it is an extraordinary remedy available at a cheaper cost to all
citizens of the country, it ought not to be used by litigants as a substitute for
ordinary ones or as a means to file frivolous complaints.
119













118
Surya Deva: Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047384.pdf
119
Sankarshan Biswas: Various Aspects of Public Interest Litigation In India,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/various-aspects-of-public-interest-litigation-in-india-1065-
1.html.
44

Conclusion
After gaining independence from the British rule on August 15, 1947, India
adopted a Constitution in November 1949. Among others, the Constitution aims
to secure to all its citizens justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship) and equality (of status and of
opportunity). These aims were not merely aspirational because the founding
fathers wanted to achieve a social revolution through the Constitution. The main
tools employed to achieve such social change were the provisions on
Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. In order to
ensure that Fundamental Rights did not remain empty declarations, the founding
fathers made various provisions in the Constitution to establish an independent
judiciary. Provisions related to Fundamental Rights, Directive Principals and an
independent judiciary together provided a firm constitutional foundation to the
evolution of PIL in India.
120

The device of Public Interest Litigation has played an invaluable role in
advancing the constitutional philosophy of social transformation and improving
access to justice.
121
PIL plays an important role in the justice system of the
country as it provides a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society,
some of which might not even be well-informed about their rights. Furthermore,
it provides an avenue to enforce diffused rights for which either it is difficult to
identify an aggrieved person or where aggrieved persons have no incentives to
knock at the doors of the courts.
122
PIL also contributes to good governance by
keeping the government accountable. PIL enables civil society to play an active
role in spreading social awareness about human rights, in providing voice to the
marginalised sections of society, and in allowing their participation in
government decision making.
123

PIL has, however, led to new problems such as an unanticipated increase in the
workload of the superior courts, lack of judicial infrastructure to determine

120
Surya Deva: Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047384.pdf
121
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan: GROWTH OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA,
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/8%5B1%5D.10.08_singapore_-
_growth_of_public_interest_litigation.pdf

122
Surya Deva: Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan047384.pdf
123
ibid
45

factual matters, gap between the promise and reality, abuse of process, friction
and confrontation with fellow organs of the government
Therefore, it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a back-door to enter
into the justice system to fulfill private interests, settle political scores or simply
to gain easy publicity. Courts should also not use PIL as a device to run the
country on a day-to-day basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive
and legislature.
Despite all the odds and shortcomings, it is recognized that PIL has a life of its
own and is here to stay as a weapon in hands of public against lawlessness,
arbitrariness and State excesses. The way forward, therefore, is to learn from
past experience, examine the parameters of PIL, strike a balance in allowing
legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones and develop mechanisms
to make it work better in the interest of the People of India.