0% found this document useful (0 votes)
170 views

What Is Pil

1. Public interest litigation (PIL) refers to legal action initiated in court for the protection of public interest. It allows a private party or the court itself to bring a case forward on behalf of the public. 2. PIL originated in India in the 1970s and was further developed in the 1980s through landmark judgments that expanded the scope of litigation to public welfare issues. 3. PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for issues that affect a large population group rather than private interests. It provides legal representation for disadvantaged communities.

Uploaded by

khushboobhatt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
170 views

What Is Pil

1. Public interest litigation (PIL) refers to legal action initiated in court for the protection of public interest. It allows a private party or the court itself to bring a case forward on behalf of the public. 2. PIL originated in India in the 1970s and was further developed in the 1980s through landmark judgments that expanded the scope of litigation to public welfare issues. 3. PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for issues that affect a large population group rather than private interests. It provides legal representation for disadvantaged communities.

Uploaded by

khushboobhatt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 22

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

→ WHAT IS PIL?
In Indian law, public interest litigation means litigation for the
protection of the public interest.It is also known as ‘SOCIAL INTEREST
LITIGATION’. It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the
aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It
is not necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the
person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should
personally approach the court. Public interest litigation is the power
given to the public by courts through judicial activism. However, the
person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court
that the petition is being filed for a public interest and not for his/her
private interest.It was designed to provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented groups like the poor,the local minorities and
for the problems regarding environment.

→ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF PIL


PIL had begun in India towards the end of 1970s and came into full
bloom in the 1980s.The concept of ‘PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION’
was initiated in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmchari Sangh (Railway) VS
Union Of India (AIR 1981 SC 298) by V.R. KRISHNA IYER wherein an
unregistered association of workers was permitted to institute a writ
petition under article 32 of the constitution for the redressal of
common grevievance.In simple words, PIL means any public-spirited
citizen can move/approach the court for the public cause by filing a
petition:

1. In Supreme Court under Art.32 of the


Constitution;
2. In High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution;
and
3. Under Section. 133 Cr.P.C. before the Court of
Magistrate.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
With the view to regulate the abuse of PIL the apex court it has
framed certain guidelines (to govern the management and
disposal of PILs.) The court must be careful to see that the
petitioner who approaches it is acting bona fide and not for
personal gain, private profit or political or other oblique
considerations. The court should not allow its process to be abused by
politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to
gain political objectives. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice PM.
Bhagwati, honourable Judges of the Supreme Court of India delivered
landmark judgements which opened up new vistas in PIL.

→When Can PIL Be Filled:


Public interest litigation can be filed only in that case where any
“public interest” is affecting at large. Because if only one person is
affecting then that is not a ground for filing PIL.

These are some of the possible areas where a PUBLIC INTEREST


LITIGATION can be filed.

 Where a factory / industrial unit is causing air pollution, and


people nearly are getting effected.

 Where, in an area / street there are no street lights, causing


inconvenience to commuters

 Where some "Banquet Hall" plays a loud music, in night causing


noise pollution.

 Where some construction company is cutting down trees,


causing environmental pollution.

 Where poor people, are affected, because of state government's


arbitrary decision to impose heavy "tax".

 For directing the police / Jail authorities to take appropriate


decisions in regards to jail reforms, such as segregation of
convicts, delay in trial, production of under trial before the court
on remand dates.

 For abolishing child labor, and bonded labor.


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
 Where rights of working women are affected by sexual
harassment.

 For keeping a check on corruption and crime involving holders of


high political officer.

 For maintaining Roads, Sewer etc in good conditions.

 For removal of Big Hoarding and signboard from the busy road to
avoid traffic problem.

 Recently a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION has been filed, for


directing the "Delhi Traffic Police" to stop the method of sending
challans to address by post, as it is being misused.

So these are the various area in which any public spirited person can
file any PIL for the interest of public. As first point is talking about
factory / industrial unit of the state. As per in this point I want to focus
that if any factory is producing any air pollution and public is affecting
by that then any person can file a PIL on the behalf of the that public
group or particular area. Secondly where in no street light and it
should be must at that place cause of meeting accident regularly.

Hence there are many ground when it can be file.

→Who Can File A PIL?


As we already said that any public spirited person even a foreigner can
file a PIL on behalf of others but this is necessary that only the person
who is filing a PIL should not get benefit. Meaning there by any PIL
whoever is filing should be only and only in for the benefit of peoples.
If only one person is getting affected by any act then that is not a
ground of filing PIL. Although earlier only the person whose interest in
directly along with others can use such litigation.

So these are the essential point for that person who can file any public
interest litigation.

 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.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
 He is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.
 His action is not motivated by personal gain or any other oblique
consideration.

As we can see that in the society there are some person who come in
the picture for the same behave as M.C. MEHTA, MACHILIPATNAM,
Lankisetti Balaji are in the lime light in this domain. There is a case
named M.C.Mehta V Union of India AIR (1987) 4 SCC 463, in this case
Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industry a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills
Limited was producing caustic and chlorine. On December 4th and 6th
1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units of
Shriram Food and Fertilizers Limited in the heart of the capital city of
Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons that one advocate
practicing in the Tees Hazari Courts died.

The leakage was caused by a series of mechanical and human errors.


This leakage resulted from the bursting of the tank containing oleum
gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on which it was
mounted and it created a scare amongst the people residing in that
area. Hardly had the people got out of the shock of this disaster when,
within two days, another leakage, though this time a minor one took
place as a result of escape of oleum gas from the joints of a pipe.

Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries had several units engaged in


the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable
bleaching powder, super phosphate, vanaspati, soap, sulphuric acid,
alum anhydrous sodium sulphate, high test hypochlorite and active
earth. All units were set up in a single complex situated in
approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly populated
colonies such as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok
Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar and within a radius of 3 kilometers
from this complex there is population of approximately 2, 00,000.

On 6th December, 1985 by the District Magistrate, Delhi under Section


133(1) of Cr.P.C, directed Shriram that within two days Shriram should
cease carrying on the occupation of manufacturing and processing
hazardous and lethal chemicals and gases including chlorine, oleum,
super-chlorine, phosphate, etc at their establishment in Delhi and
within 7 days to remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi. At this
juncture M.C.Mehta moved to the Supreme Court to claim
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
compensation by filing a PIL for the losses caused and pleaded that
the closed establishment should not be allowed to restart. So this was
one of the cases of PIL.

Indian council for Enviro-legal action v union of india chemical industry


were causing problem of pollution, affecting right to life, NGO filed
petition on behalf of the aggrieved people. Secondly in the case of
Banvasi seva Ashram v state of U.P in this case, the NGO filed a
petition on behalf of the tribal's of the affected area..

→Against Whom Public Interest Litigation


Can Be Filed?
 A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION can be filed only against a
State / Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private
party.
 INTEREST LITIGATION as "Respondent", after making concerned
state authority, a party.

For example - If there is a Private factory in Delhi, which is


causing pollution, then people living nearly, or any other person
can file a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION against:
· Government of However "Private party" can be included in
the PUBLIC Delhi 
· State Pollution Control Board, and 
· Also against the private factory

 However, a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION can not be filed


against the Private party alone concerned state Govt. /, and state
authority has to be made a party.
But public interest litigation can not file against only private party
without concerning state govt. or central govt. as in the above case
this case was against the union of India not to that corporation whose
fault was there.

Procedure To File A Public Interest Litigation:


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
Procedure to file a public interest litigation is just like a filing a
general writ in high court or supreme court.

In High Court:
If a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION is filed in a High court, then two (2)
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.

In Supreme Court:
If a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION is filed in the Supreme court, then
(4)+(1) (i.e. 5) sets of petition has to be filed opposite party is served,
the copy only when notice is issued.

Court Fees:
A Court fee of RS. 50, per respondent (i.e. for eparty, court fees of ach
number of opposite RS. 50) has to be affixed on the petition.

Procedure:
1. Proceedings, in the PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION commence and
carry on in the same manner, as other cases.
2. However, in between the proceedings if the judge feels he may
appoint a commissioner, to inspect allegations like pollution being
caused, trees being cut, sewer problems, etc.
3. After filing of replies, by opposite party, and rejoinder by the
petitioner, final hearing takes place, and the judge gives his final
decision.

→When was PIL introduced in India?


Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati (21 December 1921 – 15
June 2017) was the 17th Chief Justice of India, serving from 12 July
1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. He introduced the
concepts of public interest litigation and absolute liability in India, and
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
for this reason is held, along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a
pioneer of judicial activism in the country.

→Merits of PIL
 Vigilant citizens can find an inexpensive remedy because there
is only a nominal rate of court fees.
 Litigants can focus attention on and achieve results pertaining
to larger public issues especially in the field of human rights,
consumer welfare and the environment.

→Demerits of PIL
 Many people started handling PIL as a tool for harassment
because frivolous cases can be filed without heavy court fee
as compared to private litigations.
 Due to the flexibility of character of the PIL, the opposite party
gets an opportunity to ascertain the precise allegation and
respond to specific issues.
 The judiciary has been criticised due to the overstepping of its
jurisdiction and that it is unable to implement its orders
effectively.
 PIL is being misused by the public agitating for private
grievances in the grab of public interest by seeking publicity
rather than supporting the public cause.

LOCUS STANDI
Normally,only a person who is affected or injured by an act of the
government can sue for redress.this rule is similar to the rule of privity
of contract under the law of contracts,where a third party to the
contract cannot file a suit.When a person brings a suit and it is shown
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
that he is not the affected party,the suit is dismissed on the ground
that he had no locus standi to file such proceeding.

Thus normally,only that person whose fundamental right is violated


would have locus standi to file a writ petition for the enforcement of
that right.However,this general rule has been relaxed by the courts in
the matter of writ petitons filed for enforcing fundamental rights and it
has been held that when there is a breach which causes injury to the
general public,any interested person may be allowed to file a writ for
such violation.

CASES

M.C.MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA

Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industry a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth


Mills Limited was producing caustic and chlorine. On December 4th
and 6th 1985, a major leakage of petroleum gas took place from one
of the units of Shriram Food and Fertilizers Limited in the heart of
the capital city of Delhi which resulted in the death of several
persons that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Courts died.

The leakage was caused by a series of mechanical and human


errors. This leakage resulted from the bursting of the tank
containing oleum gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on
which it was mounted and it created a scare amongst the people
residing in that area. Hardly had the people got out of the shock of
this disaster when, within two days, another leakage, though this
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
time a minor one took place as a result of escape of oleum gas from
the joints of a pipe.

Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries had several units engaged in


the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable
bleaching powder, super phosphate, vanaspati, soap, sulphuric acid,
alum anhydrous sodium sulphate, high test hypochlorite and active
earth. All units were set up in a single complex situated in
approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly
populated colonies such as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar,
Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar and within a
radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is population of
approximately 2, 00,000.

On 6th December, 1985 by the District Magistrate, Delhi under


Section 133(1) of Cr.P.C, directed Shriram that within two days
Shriram should cease carrying on the occupation of manufacturing
and processing hazardous and lethal chemicals and gases including
chlorine, oleum, super-chlorine, phosphate, etc at their
establishment in Delhi and within 7 days to remove such chemicals
and gases from Delhi. At this juncture M.C.Mehta moved to the
Supreme Court to claim compensation by filing a PIL for the losses
caused and pleaded that the closed establishment should not be
allowed to restart.

 FACTS

1.M.C.MEHTA,the petitioner in this case was an advocate and leading


consumer activist.He filed a public interest litigation requesting the
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
courts to lay the norms for determining the liability of enterprises
engaged in the manufacture and sale of hazardous products and the
closure of ‘Shriram’ on the ground that it was hazardous to the
community.

2.The enterprise in question is Shriram food and fertilizers industries


which is a caustic chlorine plant run by the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd
commissioned in 1949.

3.During the pendency of the petition filed by M.C.Mehta,the Delhi


admistration pursuant to a question raised in the parliament abhout
the hazardous nature of the these enterprises appointed an expert
committee.This committee headed by Mr.Manmohan singh made an
extensive inquiry and submitted a detailed report to the government
outlining various recommendations to minimize the hazards that
compiled with pollution control and safety measures.

4.On the 4th of December,1985,a major leakage of Oleum gas took


place from one of the units within the plant,affecting not only its
employees but also those who resided around the plant.This occurred
during the pendency of the first petition requesting the closure of the
caustic chlorine plant on account of its hazardous nature.

5.Two days later,on the 6th of December 11985,another leakage took


place although a minor one when Oleum gas leaked out again from the
joints of a pipe in the plant.

6.The Delhi admistration had immediately responded the crisis by


issuing an order dated 6th Dec 1985 passed by the district
magistrate,Delhi directing Shriram to stop the manufacture and
processing of hazardous and lethal chemical and gases.

7.A second set of writ petition were filed by the Petitioner under
Article 32 of the Constitution,which provides for a writ against the
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
State in case of breach of fundamental rights and to entertain
appropriate compensation claims.The court directed two teams of
experts,namely the Nilay Singh Choudhary committee appointed by the
court and the Agarwal committee appointed vy the petitioner to
ascertain whether the recommendations of the Manmohan Singh
committee has been implemented in accordance with the pollution
control and safety measures.

8.A third committee ,the Seturam committee was also appointed by


the Lt.Governor of Delhi to carry out an on the spot inspection and
make its recommendations.

9.Persons affected by the gas leak were also allowed to file


compensation claims within a given period of time with the Chief
mietropolitan magistrate.

 ISSUES

1.The first issue in contention was whether the caustic chlorine plant
of Shriram should be allowed to restart the plant and if so,subject to
what conditions keeping in mind that the operation of the plant should
no longer pose a hazard or risk to the community .

2.The second issue brought forth to discuss was whether Shriram


which manufactures and its engaged in the production of hazardous
substances at the cost of environment and human life should be held
absolutely liable.

3.The third issue was whether ‘Shriram’ could be considered to be a


‘State’ within the ambit of article 12.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

4.The fourth issue raised was whether the applications for


compensation filed under article 21 is available against Shriram which
is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited,a private corporation which is
engaged in a industry vital to public interest and with potential to
affect the life and health of the people.

 JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held that Shriram is required to obtain a license
under the Factories Act and is subject to the directions and orders of
the authorities under the Act. It is also required to obtain a license for
its manufacturing activities from the Municipal authorities under the
Delhi Municipal Act, 1957. It is subject to extensive environment
regulation under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and as the factory is situated in an air pollution control area, it is
also subject to the regulation of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981. It is true that control is not exercised by the
Government in relation to the internal management policies of the
Company.
J.Bhagwati thereafter stated that, “We in hold our hands back and I
venture to evolve a new principle of liability which English Courts have
not done. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is
necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an
unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future
on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are
concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we
should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability merely because it
has not been so done in England. We are of the view 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
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an
absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no
harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The
enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must
be conducted with the 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. Since the persons
harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the
process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or
any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be
held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost
for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.

 CONCLUSION:
If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such
permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any
accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on
condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the
carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. The Court also
pointed out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases
referred to must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect.
The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, greater must be the
amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account
of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity by the enterprises.

CITATION: 1988 Air 1115 1988 Scr (2) 530, 1988 Scc (1) 471 Jt
1988 (1) 69 - Date Of Judgment 12/01/1988

D.K.BASU VS STATE OF BENGAL

The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-


political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act,
on 26th August, 1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India
drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph
dated 20, 21 and 22 of July, 1986 and in the Statesman and India
express dated 17th August, 1986 regarding deaths in police lock-ups
and custody. The Executive Chairman after reproducing the new items
submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to
develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding
compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for
attrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for
accountability of the efforts are often made to hush up the matter of
lock-up deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and "flourishes". It
was requested that the letter alongwith the new items be treated as a
writ petition under "public interest litigation" category.

Considering the importance of the issue raised in the letter being


concerned by frequent complaints regarding custodial violence and
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
deaths in police lock up, the letter was treated as a writ petition and
notice was issued on 9.2.1987 to the respondents.

In response to the notice, the State of West Bengal filed a counter. It


was maintained that the police was no hushing up any matter of lock-
up death and that whereever police personnel were found to be
responsible for such death, action was being initiated against them.
The respondents characterised the writ petition as misconceived,
misleading and untenable in law.

While the writ petition was under consideration a letter addressed by


Shri Ashok Kumar Johri on 29.7.87 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
drawing the attention of this Court to the death of one Mahesh Bihari
of Pilkhana, Aligarh in police custody was received. That letter was
also treated as a writ petition and was directed to be listed alongwith
the writ petition filed by Shri D.K. Basu. On 14.8.1987 this Court made
the following order :

"In almost every states there are allegations and these allegations are
now increasing in frequency of deaths in custody described generally
by newspapers as lock-up deaths. At present there does not appear to
be any machinery to effectively deal with such allegations. Since this
is an all India question concerning all States, it is desirable to issues
notices to all the State Governments to find out whether they are
desire to say anything in the matter. Let notices issue to all the State
Governments. Let notice also issue to the Law Commission of India
with a request that suitable suggestions may be returnable in two
months from today."

In response to the notice, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the


States of West Bengal, Orissa, Assam Himachal Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Harayana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya , Maharashtra and
Manipur. Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of Union Territory of
Chandigarh and the Law Commission of India.

Learned counsel appearing for different States and Dr. Singhvi, as a


friend of the court. presented the case ably and though the effort on
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
the part of the States initially was to show that "everything was well"
within their respective States, learned counsel for the parties, as was
expected of them in view of the importance of the issue involved, rose
above their respective briefs and rendered useful assistance to this
Court in examining various facets of the issue and made certain
suggestions for formulation of guidelines by this court to minimise, if
not prevent, custodial violence and kith and kin of those who die in
custody on account of torture.

JUDGMENTS

(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear
identification and name togs with their designations. The particulars of
all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee
must be recorded in a register.

(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall
prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest a such memo shall be
attested by atleast one witness who may be either a member of the
family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from
where the arrest is made. It shall also be counter signed by the
arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.

(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in
custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up,
shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known
to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as
practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the
particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is
himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.

(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must
be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the
arrestee lives outside the district or town through the legal Aid
Organisation in the District and the police station of the area
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the
arrest.

(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have
someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon he is put under
arrest or is detained.

(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention


regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name
of he next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest
and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody
the arrestee is.

(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the


time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on
his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo"
must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting
the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.

(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by


trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a
doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health
Services of the concerned Stare or Union Territory. Director, Health
Services should prepare such a penal for all Tehsils and Districts as
well.

(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred
to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.

(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during


interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and state
headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of
custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing
the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police
control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board."
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
CITATION:(1997) 1 SCC 416 : AIR 1997 SC 610

VISHAKA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN


PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
 

FACTS
The Supreme Court Guidelines evoked in the Case of Vishaka and others V.
State of Rajasthan and others owing to the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi
by a group of Thakurs as she attempted to stop a child marriage in their
family. Bhanwari Devi was a social worker(saathin) at rural level in a
development programme initiated by State Government of Rajasthan, aiming
to curb the evil of child marriages in villages.As part of her work,
Bhanwari Devi, tried to stop Ramkaran Gujjar’s infant daughter’s marriage.
Nevertheless, marriage took place but Bhanwari Devi was not forgiven
for here efforts to stop marriage. She was subjected to social boycott, and in
September 1992wasgang raped by five men including Ramkaran Gujjar
in front of her husband. The days that followed were filled with
hostility and humiliation for Bhanwari and her husband. The only male
doctor in the Primary Health Centre refused to examine Bhanwari and the
doctor at Jaipur only confirmed her age without making any reference
to rape in his medical report. At the police station too, the women
constables taunted her throughout the night. It was past midnight when the
policemen asked Bhanwari to leave her lehenga behind as evidence
and return to her village. She was left with only her husband’s
bloodstained dhoti to wear. Their pleas to let them sleep in the police
station at night, were turned down. The trial court acquitted the accused, but
Bhanwari was determined to fight further and get justice. She said that she
had nothing to be ashamed of and that the men should be ashamed due
to what they had done. Her fighting spirit inspired fellow saathins and women’s
groups countrywide. In the months that followed they launched a concerted
campaign for justice for Bhanwari. On December 1993, the High
Court said, “it is a case of gang-rape which was committed out of
vengeance”.This provoked women’s groups and NGOs to file a petition in the
Supreme Court of India.As part of this campaign, the groups had filed a petition
in the Supreme Court of India, under the name ‘Vishaka’, asking the court
to give certain directions regarding the sexual harassment that women
face at the workplace. The result is the Supreme Court judgement, which
came on 13th August 1997, and gave the Vishaka guidelines
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
 Issue
 Whether employer has any responsibility for sexual
harassment  by its employees.
 Whether employer has any responsibility for sexual
harassment to its employees.

 JUDGEMENT

In its judgment, the Court provided a set of guidelines for employers –


as well as other responsible persons or institutions – to immediately
ensure the prevention of sexual harassment. In accordance with
Article 141 of India’s Constitution, these guidelines were to be
considered law until appropriate legislation was created:

 Duty of the Employer or other responsible persons


in work places and other institutions.
It shall be the duty of the employer or other responsible persons
in work places or other institutions to prevent or deter the
commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the
procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts
of sexual harassment by taking all steps required.

 Definition.
For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome
sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by
implication) as:
a) physical contact and advances
b) a demand or request for sexual favours
c) sexually coloured remarks
d) showing pornography
e) any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of
sexual nature
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
 Preventive Steps.
All employers or persons in charge of a work place – including
private employers – should take the following preventative steps,
which include:
a) Express prohibition of sexual harassment as defined above at
the work place should be notified, published and circulated in
appropriate ways
b) The Rules/Regulations of Government and Public Sector bodies
relating to conduct and discipline should include
rules/regulations prohibiting sexual harassment and provide for
appropriate penalties in such rules against the offender
c) Appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of
work, leisure, health and hygiene to further ensure that there is
no hostile environment towards women at work places and no
employee woman should have reasonable grounds to believe that
she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment

 Criminal Proceedings.
Where such conduct amounts to a specific offence under the
Indian Penal Code or under any other law the employer shall
initiate appropriate action by making a complaint with the
appropriate authority. In particular, it should ensure that victims,
or witnesses are not victimized or discriminated against while
dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. The victims of
sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of the
perpetrator or their own transfer.

 Disciplinary Action.
Where such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as
defined by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary
action should be initiated by the employer in accordance with
those rules.

 Complaint Mechanism.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)
Whether or not such conduct constitutes an offence under law or
a breach of the service rules, an appropriate complaint
mechanism should be created in the employer’s organization for
redress of the complaint made by the victim. Such complaint
mechanism should ensure time bound treatment of complaints.

 Complaints Committee.
The complaint mechanism should be adequate to provide, where
necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counsellor or
other support service, including the maintenance of
confidentiality.

 Workers’ Initiative.
Employees should be allowed to raise issues of sexual
harassment at workers meeting and in other appropriate forum
and it should be affirmatively discussed in Employer-Employee
Meetings.

 Awareness.
Awareness of the rights of female employees in this regard
should be created in particular by prominently notifying the
guidelines (and appropriate legislation when enacted on the
subject) in suitable manner.

 Where sexual harassment occurs as a result of an act or


omission by any third party or outsider, the employer and person
in charge will take all steps necessary and reasonable to assist
the affected person in terms of support and preventive action.

CITATION: Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241; AIR 1997 SC. 3011

You might also like