Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system. However, it is not defined in any statute or any act. It has been interpreted by judge to consider the intent of public at large. This is just like a writ petition which is file in high court or Supreme Court under article 226 for high court and article 32 for Supreme Court. When public interest in affecting at large then this can be filed but affection on only one person is not a ground for filing this petition.
However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfill private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy 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.
Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court’s privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.
Evolution of PIL in India: Some Landmark Judgments
In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition in regards to the condition of the prisoners detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in court. The petition was signed by prisoners of the Bihar jail and the case was filed in the Supreme Court of India before the bench headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. The petition was filed under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, and the case was therefore named Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar. The Supreme Court decided that prisoners should receive free legal aid and fast hearings. As a result, 40,000 prisoners were released from jail.
The following are the landmark cases in the history of Public interest litigation’s:
Javed V. State of Haryana
This was another landmark judgment through a PIL. In Haryana, a person having more than two living children was disqualified from holding any offices in Panchayats. The purpose was to promote family planning. The petitioners and appellants in the case were individuals who had been disqualified from holding an office in panchayat due to the reason that they had more than two children.
The Court upheld the provision, as it was a provision in public interest. The PIL indirectly promoted family planning in India even though the judgment did not do anything to evaluate it critically.
Hussainara Khatoon V. State of Bihar
In this case, the attention of the Courts was brought to the incredible situation of undertrials in Bihar who had been in detention pending trial for periods in excess to the maximum sentence for their offenses. The Court proceeded to make the right to a speedy trial the central issue of the case and passed the order to release close to 40,000 under-trials who had undergone detention beyond the maximum sentence.
M.C. Mehta V. Union of India
The judgment was passed against civic authorities for allowing untreated sewage from tanneries in Kanpur to make its way into the Ganges.
The court passed three landmark judgments and numerous orders against the polluting industries. Apart from industries, more than 250 towns and cities also had to set up sewage treatment due to this case.
The ruling shifted 600 tanneries out of the city and relocated them toa planned leather complex in West Bengal, which earlier operated in a highly congested residential area of Kolkata.
Several industries were shut down and only allowed to reopen after setting up effluent treatment plants that controlled pollution.
Parmanand Katara V. Union of India
Parmanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed this writ petition. It was based on a newspaper report regarding the death of a scooterist after an accident. Doctors refused to attend to him and directed him to another hospital around 20 km. away that could deal with medico-legal cases.
Based on the petition, the apex Court held:
• That preservation of human life is of paramount importance.
• Every doctor has the professional obligation to extend his/her services to protect life.
• The effort to save the person should be the top priority. This applies not only to the legal profession but also to the police and other citizens’ part of the matter.
Shreya Singhal V. Union of India
This was a case relating to the IT Act, 2000, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, was struck down by the Supreme Court as it was unconstitutional and violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees the freedom of speech. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by being ‘reasonable restrictions’ on freedom of speech under Article 19(2). This case was a landmark moment for online speech in India.
As per Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, some of the matters which are entertained under PIL are:
(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
Who Can File a PIL and Against Whom?
Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition against a State/ Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private party:
o Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.
o Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.
o Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of Magistrate.
