What Is Pil
What Is 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.
For removal of Big Hoarding and signboard from the busy road to
avoid traffic problem.
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.
So these are the essential point for that person who can file any public
interest litigation.
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.
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.
→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.
CASES
FACTS
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.
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 .
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
"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."
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.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred
to above, should be sent to the illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(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
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
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.