Public Interest Litigation (PIL) serves as a legal recourse initiated in a court of law for the benefit of a vague entity or a case impacting the public or a specific community with a financial or legal interest. Empowered by judicial activism, any citizen can file litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, under Article 226 to the High Court, and under Section 133 of CRPC to the Court of Magistrate.
The contributions of Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer have been instrumental in this juristic revolution. The principles outlined in Article 39A (Equal justice and free legal aid) align with the PIL concept. It allows litigation against the state or central government, municipal authorities, but not private parties, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution.
Objectives
1. Ensure equal access to justice, especially for the destitute and underprivileged masses.
2. Broaden issues affecting consumer classes and the public.
3. Challenge the laissez-faire notion of traditional justice.
4. Democratize the judicial process through awareness, assertiveness, and resources for redressal.
Categories entertained as PIL
1. Bonded labor matters.
2. Issues related to neglected children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers.
4. Complaints regarding harassment, death in jail, speedy trials, etc.
5. Petitions against the police for not filing a case, harassment of brides, rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.
6. Litigation against atrocities on women.
7. Complaints related to harassment of SC/ST people.
8. Petitions related to the environment.
Pros of PIL
1. Provides an inexpensive remedy with nominal court fees.
2. Enables the court to focus on larger public interests like human rights, environment, and consumer welfare.
3. Allows the judiciary to hold the executive accountable for improper duties.
4. Checks and balances against arbitrary executive discretion.
5. Court-appointed commissions can investigate cases where the petitioner is socially or economically weak.
6. Facilitates legal representation for previously unrepresented voices.
Cons of PIL
- Prone to harassment due to frivolous cases with nominal fees.
2. Relaxation in locus standi requirements can lead to privately motivated interests posing as public interests.
3. Criticism for judicial overreach and orders difficult to implement effectively.
4. Delays in justice due to additional frivolous PILs burdening the judiciary.
5. Potential abuse by political pressure groups and NGOs influenced by external interests.
Challenges
- Rampant misuse of PIL has raised suspicions.
2. Delay in legitimate administrative actions for political gain.
3. Difficulty in identifying vested aims and interests.
4. Lack of awareness about the mechanism and procedure to file PIL.
Landmark cases
1. Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar: It was held that prisoners have right to get free legal aid and fast hearing.
2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India: Allowed third-party intervention in case of fundamental rights violation.
3. DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1986): In the 1986 case Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others, the Supreme Court ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances was unconstitutional and a fraud on the Constitution. The court also struck down the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance as unconstitutional and void.
4. C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1988):
The Supreme Court of India ruled in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India that the petitioner had the right to file a petition to protect the lives of people who use the water of the Ganges River. The court also stated that public health is more important than revenue and unemployment. The court criticized the municipality for failing to act and called for an effective sewage and drainage system.
5. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India:
The Supreme Court of India unanimously ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was unconstitutional. The court found that the section was vague and overbroad, and violated the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
