PIL IN INDIA IT'S USES AND ABUSES: A CRITICAL STUDY

A DISSERTATION PAPER SUBMITTED FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN LAWS (LL.M.)
(CRIMINAL LAW),2024

Under the Guidance and Supervision of: Submitted By: Subham

Sahoo
Dr. L.N Suar, Asst prof. in Law & 4th Sem, LLM
HOD Roll No: 4111122026
P.G Dept of law (LL.M.) Batch: LL.M. (2022-2024)
G.M Law college, Puri, Odisha G.M Law college, Puri,
Odisha

MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK

(STATE UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ODISHA UNIVERSITIES ACT,1989)

ODISHA-753003

(2022-2024)

1
2
3
4
 SUPERVISOR'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this dissertation paper “THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION AND THE ROLE OF THE INDIAN JUDICIARY: A CRITICAL STUDY
WITH REFERENCE TO ODISHA” submitted to Madhusudan Law University, as partial
fulfilment of the LL.M. Course for the academic session 2022-2024, is a record of bona- fide
work carried out by SUBHAM SAHOO, Roll No 4111122026 under my supervision and
guidance.

The primary data collected through questionnaire method with the help of Google form
platform and all other help received by him from various sources have been duly
acknowledged.

No part of this project work has been submitted elsewhere for award of any other degree.

5
 DECLARATION

I, Subham Sahoo, hereby certifies that this research is my own work, derived from my
personal study and/or investigation. I recognize every source and references used
in preparing, including books, articles, and reports lecture notes, as well as any other form of
electronic or private interaction, including documents.

Additionally, I confirm that this endeavour has not been previously evaluated in any
capacity, intellectual ability, and that I've not plagiarized in any way, whether in part or in full
by the labour of others.

I hereby verify that I have discovered and disclosed all potential conflicts that may exist.

PLACE: PURI NAME: SUBHAM SAHOO

DATE: EXAM ROLL NO.: 4111122026

6
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am profoundly appreciative of the advice, assistance, and contributions of a multitude of

individuals and institutions, without which this study would not have been feasible.

I would like to begin by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to my research guide, Dr. L.N
Suar, for his unwavering support, encouragement, and insightful guidance throughout this
entire process. His commitment to excellence and expertise have motivated me to challenge
the limits of my study, and their helpful suggestions at each phase of my research has
significantly improved the standard of this paper.

I am deeply appreciative of Dr. L.N Suar, for their willingness to evaluate drafts and suggest
improvements, as well as their technical expertise and valuable advice. Their extreme care to
specifics and helpful suggestions were instrumental in the final manuscript's refinement.

This research was made possible by the kind assistance of Gangadhar Mohapatra Law
college. I am grateful to Gangadhar Mohapatra Law college, for the resources and
facilities that enabled me to conduct my research in an efficient manner. I am particularly
grateful to the personnel at [Lab Name, Library, or Department] for their technical guidance
and administrative assistance, which significantly aided in the completion of my work.

I am appreciative of the moral support, stimulating discussions, and collaboration of my

classmates and peers, throughout this voyage. The direction of this investigation was
significantly influenced by the people's readiness to participate in candid discussions and
share their ideas.

I would also like to express my gratitude to MANOJ KUMAR DASH, whose expertise has
been instrumental in my ability to surmount numerous obstacles, especially in the areas of
[specific area of difficulty, e.g., statistical analysis, field research, etc,]. Their input was

7
essential in guaranteeing the reliability of my approach and data analysis.

Lastly, I would like to extend my most profound appreciation to my family and loved ones
for their unwavering backing, forbearance, and understanding. Throughout the course of the
project, their confidence in my capacity to complete the project was a source of fortitude, and
their encouragement carried me through the most difficult moments.

8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUPERVISOR'S CERTIFICATE...............................................................................................4
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................10
LIST OF CASES......................................................................................................................11
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................12
CHAPTER-1............................................................................................................................15
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC.........................................................15
1.1. BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................20
1.2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM......................................................................................20
1.4. RESEARCH QUESTION.............................................................................................21
1.5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................21
1.6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................21
1.7. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY...........................................................................................22
1.8. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................22
1.9 . LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 2.............................................................................................................................24
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.........................................24
2.1. CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS.........................................................................25
2.2. RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY CONSTITUTION.......................................................31
2.3. CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES...............................................................................34
2.4. PROCEDURES.............................................................................................................36
CHAPTER- 3...........................................................................................................................44
JUDICIAL APPROACH ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION CASES...........................44
3.1. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ASPECT OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION..........46
3.2. ENVIROMENT PRTOECTIION AND PREVENTION OF POLLUTION................52
3.3. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND ETHICS............................................................55
3.4. JUDICIAL PROGRESS TOWARDS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.................58
3.5. PUBLIC LIFE CORRUPTION.....................................................................................61
3.6. GENERAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................62
3.7. PROTECTION AGAINST INHUMANE TREATMENT IN JAIL..............................67
3.8. AUTHORITY TO GRANT COMPENSATION...........................................................70

9
 3.9.THE SITUATION OF PIL IN ODISHA ………………………………………………
71
CHAPTER-4…..……………………………………………...………………………….80
PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION IT'S USES AND ABUSES…………………………..80
4.1 USES OF
PIL………………………………………………………………………….80
4.1.1 ENFORCING LEGAL
OBLIGATION……………………………………………...82
4.1.2 PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF MINORITIES……………………………………
84
4.1.3 STRENGTHING THE JUDICIARY……………………………,,……………...
….86
4.1.4 PREVENTING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW
………………………………….88
4.1.5 ACHIEVING CONSTITUTIONAL
GOALS……………………………………….91
4.1.6 PROTECTING ENVIORMENTAL
GOALS……………………………………….93
4.2 ABUSE OF PIL……………………………………………………………………..…
96
4.2.1 POLITICAL AND BUISNESS………………………………………………..……
99
4.2.2 HINDERING THE DEVLOPMENT………………………………………………
102
4.2.3 PUBLICITY INTEREST
LITIGATION…………………………………………...105
4.2.4 PRIVATE INTEREST ENFORCEMENT…………………………………………108
4.2.5 HARASS
OPPONENT…………………………………………………………….112
CHAPTER 5……………………………………………………………………………...…116
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN PIL CASES....................................................................116
5.1. ISSUES IN ODISHA..................................................................................................116
5.2. LIMITATIONS AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION..................120
5.3. PIL PROS....................................................................................................................122
5.4. PIL CONS...................................................................................................................125
5.5. ABUSE OF PIL...........................................................................................................135

10
 5.6. DIRECTIVES REGARDING THE MISUSE OF PIL:..............................................136
CHAPTER-6……...……………………………………………………………………...141
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS................................................................................141
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................158

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 ADAPT- Able Disable All People Together

 AIR- All India Reporter
 ADR- Alternative Dispute resolutions
 ACLU- American Civil Liberties Union
 BPRD- Bureau of Police Research and Development
 CFAS- Centre for Auto Safety
 CLASP- Centre for Law and Social Policy
 CBI- Central Bureau of investigation
 CPIL- Centre for Public Interest Litigation
 CPC- Civil Procedure Code
 DPSP- Directive Principles of State Policy
 HC- High Court
 NALSA- National Legal Services Authority
 PUCL- People’s Union For Civil Liberties
 PUDR- People’s Union For Democratic Rights
 SCC Supreme Court Cases
 SCR- Supreme Court Reporter

11
LIST OF CASES

 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

 Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
 Gaurav Jain v. Union of India
 M.C. Mehta v. UOI
 Common Cause v. UOI
 Neerja Chaudhary v. State of MP
 Kishen v. State of Orissa
 State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairanjan
 State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal
 State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee
 State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and K. K. Kochunni v. State of Madras
 Laxmikant Pandey v. UOI
 Supreme-Court-Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. UOI
 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

12
  Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P
 M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
 Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
 Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
 National Federation of Blind v. U.P.S.C
 Harbans Singh v. State of U.P
 Service Association v. State of Gujarat

PREFACE

The device of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has become a recognized characteristic feature
of the higher judiciary in India over the past three decades. Indian courts have emerged as the
site where the concept of "public law litigation" has been repeatedly employed to safeguard
the rights of disadvantaged groups and address matters of collective concern, despite the fact
that they cannot claim credit for its inception. American academic Abram Chayes was the
first to prominently use the term "public law litigation" to describe the practice of lawyers or
public-spirited individuals who aim to incite social change through court-ordered orders to
change the law, enforce existing laws, and articulate public norms. Nevertheless, the
development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, or Social Action Litigation, has
incorporated a number of additional unique characteristics.

The category of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been associated with its own "people-
friendly" procedure since the first few instances in the late 1970s. The most significant
modification was the reduction of the necessity for 'locus standi' to initiate proceedings.
The Court permitted social activists and lawyers to bring actions on their behalf, as the
objective was to guarantee redress for those who were either too impoverished to petition the
courts or were oblivious of their legal rights. In many instances, the Court took suo moto
cognizance of matters involved the abuse of imprisoned individuals bonded labourers, and

13
inmates of mental institutions by writing letters to sitting justices. 'Epistolary jurisdiction' is
the term that now describes the practice of initiating proceedings on the premise of letters.

The acknowledged common-law framework of adversarial litigation is not entirely consistent

with the nature of proceedings in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The dynamics of the
courtroom are significantly distinct from those of typical civil or criminal appeals. Although a
combative environment can win in cases where actions are brought to draw attention to
administrative apathy or the government's condonation of abusive practices, judges typically
play a more active role in public interest-related litigation by posing questions to the parties
and exploring solutions.

The orientation of the proceedings is typically more amenable to collective problem-solving

than a contentious contest between the counsels, particularly in actions that seek directions
for ensuring governmental accountability or environmental protection.

The parties are not afforded an important chance to present evidence on record prior to the
commencement of the court proceeding, as these matters are immediately filed at the
Supreme Court or the High Court. In order to resolve this issue, our courts have implemented
the practice of designating "fact-finding commissions" on a case-by-case basis. These
commissions are tasked with investigating the subject matter of the case and providing a
report to the Court. Typically, these commissions are composed of practicing lawyers or
experts in the relevant disciplines. On a case-by-case basis, the Courts also engage the
services of senior counsels by designating them as amicus curiae in complex legal matters.

These actions are classified as those that fall within the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
of India under Article 32 of our Constitution and the various High Courts under Article 226
for the purposes of constitutional competence. The traditional scope of writ jurisdiction was,
of course, a colonial legacy from the British era, and the remedies that could be invoked were
habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari. Nevertheless, the Indian
Courts have expanded the scope of legal remedies by introducing the concept of a
"continuing mandamus," which entails the issuance of consistent directives and the oversight
of their execution by executive agencies. In addition to devising remedies to guarantee that

14
their orders are honoured, the courts have also implemented private law remedies, including
injunctions and "stay" orders, in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases.

Although these critiques have been advanced by distinguished scholars, senior practitioners,
and sitting justices, there is a significantly stronger argument in favour of the utilization of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 'Judicial activism' in India is primarily justified by the highly
stratified social structure of our population, which necessitates judges to take proactive
measures to safeguard the interests of those who lack the resources or information to
influence the political system. This positions the Indian Courts in a social role that is
significantly different from that of several developed nations, where the directives issued by
"unelected judges" are frequently perceived as unjustified restrictions on the will of the
majority. This counter majoritarian function necessitates a robust discharge by an independent
and reliable judiciary.
The present thesis addresses a variety of topics, and I approached them with a contrite
perspective. I am an amateur constitutional law student with limited diction and expression.
This is my modest endeavour.
Consequently, I must acknowledge that the ideas I have articulated are not entirely original or
novel, and they are largely derived from the valuable contributions of numerous distinguished
judges, writers, and jurists.

15
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a crucial mechanism in the Indian judicial
system that allows individuals or groups to file lawsuits on behalf of the general public, even
if they are not personally affected by the issues, in order to protect public interest and enforce
rights. The Indian Judiciary has been instrumental in creating and developing the parameters
of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), turning it into a strong instrument for achieving social
justice and legal remedy. Public interest litigation (PIL) refers to legal action initiated in a
court of law with the aim of safeguarding the welfare and concerns of the general public.
Public Interest Litigation can be filed in a court of law to address matters that have an impact
on the general public, such as pollution, terrorism, road safety, and construction hazards. 1
The term 'Public Interest Litigation' has been adopted from American legal practice. It was
originally intended to offer legal counsel to marginalized groups such as the impoverished,
racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and citizens who were deeply concerned about
environmental matters.2

1
Basics of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, IMPRI IMPACT AND POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (2023),
https://www.impriindia.com/insights/basics-of-pil-event-report/ (last visited May 28, 2024).

2
Express News Service, ORISSA HC DISMISSES PIL AS PVT INTEREST LITIGATION, IMPOSES RS 2,000 FINE ON
PETITIONER THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS, https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2024/Apr/04/orissa-
hc-dismisses-pil-as-pvt-interest-litigation-imposes-rs-2000-fine-on-petitioner (last visited May 28, 2024).

16
The term "PIL" is not explicitly defined in any statute or act. Judges have construed it to take
into account the collective intention of the general public. Judicial activism grants the public
with power bestowed by the courts. For a comprehensive understanding of Judicial Activism,
please refer to the linked page. Nevertheless, the petitioner must substantiate to the court's
contentment that the petition is being submitted in the public's best interest and not merely as
a baseless lawsuit by an overly meddlesome individual. 3

Public Interest Litigation encompasses various issues such as Neglected Children, Bonded
Labour, Atrocities on Women, Non-payment of minimum wages to workers, exploitation of
casual workers, food adulteration, Environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological
balance, and Maintenance of heritage and culture.

In each democratic nation, the legislature, executive, and judiciary are the three most critical
entities that are crucial to the country's administration. The judiciary is responsible for the
maintenance of law and order in the country and the resolution of disputes. Each country has
its own judiciary, regardless of the nature of its government. Therefore, it is imperative that
this department of the government maintain complete impartiality and apoliticality.
Nevertheless, the laws of the nation are occasionally drafted in a manner that could be
construed in a variety of ways. The role of tribunals and judges as custodians of justice
becomes highly significant in the event that a law is interpreted incorrectly. In recent years,
this aspect has given rise to the dual concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Constitutional litigation has significantly altered the administration of justice in the context of
modern Indian constitutional law. This alteration has implications for the discourse
surrounding constitutional law in general and governing in specific. This modification is
primarily the result of the Superior Courts' seminal review jurisdiction.

These changes have been produced by a variety of factors, including the emergence of socio-
political demands and the views of the function of courts in the advancement of constitutional
objectives.
The most significant accomplishment of our Supreme Court is the creation of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), which Upendra Baxi has renamed "Social Action Litigation" in Indian
jurisprudence. The implementation of rule of law and Constitutionalism in the legal system of

3
Monika Sangeeta Ahuja, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA, https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/1417/1/U084680.pdf
(last visited May 28, 2024).

17
India is supported by the evidence of its origin and growth. The Public Interest Litigation has
grown as the jurisprudence of the populace. In the past, the golden key was exclusively
owned by affluent individuals, who possessed the monopoly on the sanctuary of justice. The
new mass-oriental jurisprudence has replaced the class-oriented common law system of
justice dispensation. The Goddess of justice has been brought to the ignorant and abused
through a tide of Public Interest Litigation. This new trend eliminates all the negative aspects
of local complexity and procedural rigidity4.

Providing justice to society necessitates access to the courts. It is presupposed that a just
solution is available and that the Court can be approached to attain it.

The development of the Indian legal system is significantly influenced by the preamble of the
Constitution and the guiding principles of state policy. The rapid expansion and growth of
Public Interest Litigation, a new and latest feature, is fulfilling the objectives outlined in the
preamble and directive principles, thereby opening up a fresh chapter in the Indian judicial
system. After three decades of the Republic, the Supreme Court of India is finally
transitioning to the Supreme Court for Indians with the implementation of this mechanism.

The supreme constitutional court had become "a theatre of legal arguing for men with long
purses" for an extended period. Recently, the Court has been increasingly recognized as the
"last resort for the oppressed and the bewildered" by both justices and the general public.
The Indian appellate judiciary has undergone a remarkable transformation, transitioning from
a conventional captive agency with low social visibility to a liberated agency with high socio-
political visibility. The primary manifestation of this transition is judicial populism, which
emerged in the aftermath of the emergency.
The court began to strengthen its moral authority and support base in the nation when other
levels of governance were experiencing a legitimation crisis.
In the process, the Court, like other political institutions, made promises that were beyond its
ability to fulfil and was severely impacted by the dynamics of disenchantment.

Many affairs that were previously considered solely by individuals have now become a
matter of public worry and intervention as a result of the demise of laissez-faire. The state is

4
BYJUS. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India - Procedure, Significance, Criticism of PIL in India.
[online] Available at: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/public-interest-litigation-pil/.

18
obligated to ensure that all citizens are treated fairly, regardless of their economic status. A
new jurisprudence that is in accordance with contemporary conditions has emerged as a result
of the multitude of case law that has been developed in response to the increasing
accountability of the state to the people5.

DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

'Public Interest' refers to "the common well-being and public welfare," while 'Litigation'
denotes "a legal action, including all proceedings, that begins in a court of law with the
objective of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy." Consequently, the term "Public Interest
Litigation" refers to "a type of litigation that is conducted for the public good or to address a
public grievance." In layman's terms, Public Interest Litigation is the process by which a
public-spirited citizen may petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of other individuals in order to
enforce their rights.

Public Interest Litigation is a legal privilege that allows members of the public to take action
to redress a public injury through the court system. This injury may arise as a result of the
violation of a public duty or a violation of a constitutional provision. Public Interest
Litigation is fundamentally designed to enforce the legal rights of individuals who are
impoverished, unaware, feeble, unaware of the legal redressal system, or otherwise in a
disadvantageous position as a result of their social or economic circumstances. Public Interest
Litigation was not an instantaneous phenomenon; rather, it was a concept that was established
a considerable amount of time prior to its rapid expansion in the early 1980s. Currently, it
dominates the public's view of the Supreme Court. The court is now an institution that is
responsible for bringing relief to the citizens and is also experimenting with the development
of policy that the state is to adhere to6.
Public Interest Litigation in India is a "Phoenix, a whole new creature that has emerged from
the ashes of an old order."

It is a novel approach to judicial discourse that illustrates the collaborative efforts of the

5
Drishti IAS. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation. [online] Available at:
https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/public-interest-litigation.
6
Team, N.I.C. (2024). Public Interest Litigation (PIL). [online] Available at:
https://www.nextias.com/blog/public-interest-litigation/.

19
petitioner, state or public authority, and the court to ensure the celebration of legitimate or
legal rights that are granted to the most vulnerable or marginalized members of society, such
as workers or handicraft persons, and to achieve social justice for them. It also illustrates the
endeavors of public-spirited individuals, journalists, and social activists to highlight the
tribulations of the working class, laborers, and the marginalized members of society.
Public Interest Litigation is a tool that enables any individual who has experienced a violation
of their fundamental rights to directly appeal to one of the state's High tribunals or the
Supreme Court, bypassing the local tribunals.

Equitable remedies, such as injunctions, are being prioritized in order to coerce the
government to implement the necessary measures to address these violations. However, in
numerous cases, the courts also serve as legislators by giving writs of mandamus and
compelling the government to enact legislation that addresses rights disparities. For instance,
the Supreme Court established anti-harassment guidelines that essentially function as law in a
sexual harassment case. These methods serve to emphasize the apparent absence of
confidence in the legislature's ability to fulfil its obligations.

In recent years, Public Interest Litigation has undergone a substantial transformation from
conventional judicial proceedings. It has now become the dominant factor in the public's
perception of the Supreme Court. The primary objective of Public Interest Litigation is to
enforce the basic and other legal rights of individuals who are impoverished, vulnerable,
unaware of the legal system, or otherwise in a precarious position as a result of their social or
economic circumstances. The Supreme Court of India initiated the initiative to allow
volunteer social activists to represent the interests of the impoverished in judicial
proceedings. This was achieved by relaxing the doctrine of locus standi and establishing
epistolary jurisdiction, which allowed the court to treat a letter written on behalf of a
disadvantaged individual as a petition and evaluate the merits of the grievances accordingly.

According to the locus standi principle, a writ petition may only be filed by an aggrieved
party in response to a violation of their fundamental rights. Nevertheless, there were instances
in which the rule of locus standi did not require strict adherence, such as in the case of writs
of habeas corpus and quo warranto, even prior to the expansion of the scope of locus standi
and the development of the concept of Public Interest Litigation. At present, this rule has
been relaxed, and an individual who is acting in good faith and has a substantial interest in
20
the Public Interest Litigation proceeding will have a locus standi. Consequently, they may
approach the court to address the infringement of fundamental rights and the genuine
violation of the law. The sole prerequisite is that the individual in question should not be
motivated by any personal advantage, private profit, political motive, or oblique
consideration7.
Access to justice is a fundamental right. This right of access is not merely the capacity of the
underprivileged segments of the community to file a lawsuit in court. It encompasses the
ability to present concerns regarding equality and equal opportunities, life and liberty, and
interests that arise from the directive principles of state policy.

It also implies the exercise of constitutional jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution to safeguard environmental concerns and sustainable development, ensure good
governance, and promote human rights through the due process of law. This research work
will examine the emergence and role of Public Interest Litigation in ensuring celebration of
legal disciplines and limitations, as well as the attendant issues of authority, process, remedial
procedures, reliefs, and the structuring of the processes of Public Interest Litigation..

1.1. BACKGROUND
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal process in India that enables individuals or groups to
initiate lawsuits in the interest of the general public, specifically to safeguard the rights of
people who are incapable of seeking legal recourse on their own. Contrary to conventional
legal proceedings, where the petitioner must have a personal interest in the case, Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) broadens the concept of locus standi, enabling any person or group
with a commitment to the public good to request judicial involvement in problems of public
importance.

1.2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Odisha, a state with a varied socio-economic and cultural milieu, has seen the emergence of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as an important tool for resolving concerns relating to
environmental conservation, human rights, and governance matters. Nevertheless, the
7
Garg, R. (2021). All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL). [online] iPleaders. Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-public-interest-litigation-pil/.

21
efficacy and influence of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in Odisha continue to be topics of
discussion and examination. There are apprehensions regarding the availability, extent, and
tangible effect of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) on underprivileged communities, and if
these legal actions truly serve the welfare of the public or are occasionally used for personal
or political advantages.
The problem statement aims to investigate the following crucial matters:
Analysing the historical background and legal framework that underpins Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Indian judicial setting, with a specific focus on landmark cases and
judicial pronouncements, in order to understand the concept and evolution of PIL in India.
The Indian Judiciary's Role: Analysing the proactive involvement of the Indian judiciary in
the advancement and enlargement of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), encompassing the
principles and directives established by the Supreme Court and different High Courts.
Conducting an investigation of the distinct characteristics and patterns of Public Interest
Litigations (PILs) filed in the state of Odisha. This includes examining the main subjects of
these PILs, such as environmental concerns, human rights, and corruption, as well as the
socio-economic circumstances that give rise to these legal actions.
Proposed methods to enhance the efficiency of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in Odisha
include ensuring their alignment with the objective of serving public interest, improving their
accessibility, and implementing safeguards to prevent misuse.

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTION

a) What is the historical development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) within the
Indian judiciary?
b) Which historic judgments and judicial declarations have had a significant impact on
the growth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India?
c) What are the prevalent themes and concerns that are addressed by Public Interest
Litigations (PILs) filed in the state of Odisha?

1.5. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

2. To examine the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Indian court
system.
3. To analyse significant landmark cases and judicial pronouncements that have had an
impact on the growth and implementation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India.

22
 4. To identify and classify the prevalent themes and concerns addressed by Public
Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the state of Odisha.

1.6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher uses doctrinal method for this research. The sources include statutes. The
secondary sources include articles, case laws and journals. An extensive examination of
current legal literature, case precedents, and official reports. Thorough examination of
significant legal cases to comprehend matters related to jurisdiction and procedural aspects.
Investigating the judicial hierarchy in different common law jurisdictions to discover the
most effective methods.

1.7. SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The objective of this study is to offer a thorough comprehension of the functioning of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) within the legal and social context of Odisha. This research
contributes to the wider discussion on judicial activism and public interest litigation in India.
The study will specifically examine the problems and potential of Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) in Odisha. It aims to provide valuable insights that can be used to inform policy
reforms at both the state and national level.

1.8. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The study focuses on PIL cases filed in Odisha. The research also looks into some PIL filed
in India for reference purposes.
METHOD OF CITATION
The researcher has used Oscola citation method.

1.9 . LITERATURE REVIEW

The book "Environmental Law and Policy" by Aruna Venkat 8 explicitly discusses viewpoints
on environmental protection within the framework of constitutional law. The book explicitly
highlights the constitutional dedication to environmental problems through significant legal
cases. Article 21 of the constitution encompasses the Right to a Hygienic Environment,

8
Aruna Venkat, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY- BUYENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICYONLINE AT BEST
PRICES IN INDIA HTTPS://WWW.PHINDIA.COM,
https://www.phindia.com/Books/BookDetail/9788120344365/environmental-law-and-policy-venkat (last visited
May 28, 2024).

23
which is a derived right from the Right to Life. The discussion revolved around the
correlation between the right to a clean environment and other fundamental rights.
In his renowned publication titled "Relationship between the Executive, Legislature and
Judiciary," Justice K.G. Balakrishnan9 expressed the view that the Supreme Court has been
the leading authority in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court serves as a
power regulator by fulfilling two primary functions: restraining government arbitrariness and
preventing power abuse, while also promoting greater rationality and intelligence in policy-
making. The Supreme Court serves as a stronghold for upholding democracy and a fortress
for protecting civil freedoms. It has the potential to be a powerful tool for achieving social
justice by promoting equal outcomes. The position that the Supreme Court should exercise
restraint overlooks the ongoing shortcomings in governance by the other branches of
government. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize, balance, and rectify any inadequacies
originating from the other branches of government. The sole purpose of the Court is to
safeguard the rights of individuals, and all of its acts are aimed at advancing this objective.
He asserts that the Court functions as a means of exerting control on the State in response to
any wrongdoing committed by it. An autonomous judiciary is an essential component of a
system that safeguards the rights of individuals who lack influence in majority-based politics,
ensuring equality.

In his essay "Awareness of Rights," Mukul Mudgal J.10 argues that the Indian Judiciary has
expanded the range of rights accessible to the general public by employing a liberal and
purposive interpretation of the different Articles of the Constitution. He asserts that the rights
exemplify the unwavering endeavours of the Indian Judiciary to bestow significance upon the
constitutionally provided rights for the vast population of the country.

9
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan , Relationship between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary,
https://www.scribd.com/document/305501321/08-Chapter-2 (last visited May 28, 2024).

10
Mukul Mudgal, LAW & SPORTS IN INDIA- DEVELOPMENTS, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES BY MUKUL MUDGAL
BHARAT LAW HOUSE (2023), https://bharatlawhouse.in/shop/sports-law/law-sports-in-india-developments-
issues-and-challenges-by-mukul-mudgal/ (last visited May 28, 2024).

24
 CHAPTER 2

LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

For the first time in Indian legal history, petitions that had previously been rejected on
procedural grounds were admitted to the Supreme Court in 1979. This was implemented to
facilitate the consideration of poverty and inequality in legal forums by enhancing access to
justice. Public interest litigation (PIL), as these cases were referred to, is the specific
application of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to enforce the legal rights of
marginalized groups by evading rigorous procedural requirements.' PIL is a fluid category of
cases that cannot be definitively defined in terms of issues or procedures, as it is determined
by the parameters ascribed to both the content and form of cases by the judges, litigants,
attorneys, and commentators involved.

This thesis will analyse all reported and numerous unreported cases that were defined as PlLs
in the Supreme Court and High Courts from their introduction in 1979 to April 1994.

The relaxation of procedural rules, including locus standi and the form in which a petition
was lodged, was a result of the increasing concern for access to justice and the provision of
constitutionally guaranteed rights. Letters were admitted as writ petitions, and suo moto
actions were initiated. The significance of conciliatory methods of case resolution was
underscored as PIL's characteristics were further elucidated. Nevertheless, this form of
litigation expanded beyond its initial scope as it garnered credibility. The Court's initial
objective was to enhance its responsiveness to poverty and inequality by reevaluating the
legal process and the judgments it renders. This legal mechanism has been increasingly
appropriated by those who seek to use it as a tactic for gaining the notice of the courts,
despite the availability of alternative remedies, as it escalates and encompasses an expanse of
public interest issues11.

11
The PILS Project. (2022). What is Public Interest Litigation - The PILS Project NI. [online] Available at:
https://pilsni.org/what-is-public-interest-litigation/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

25
However, there have been few instances in which substantial success has been achieved,
despite the fact that PIL has achieved notable results, such as extending the judicial discourse
on rights, promoting awareness of poverty-related issues, and creating a concern for access to
justice. Many petitions were not included or heard, despite the fact that they have overcome
initial obstacles to entering the tribunal. The procedure established for the administration of
letters submitted to the Court has undermined the objective of ensuring access to justice
during a time of greatest need.

Despite the monitoring of directions given in specific cases and the issuance of numerous
court orders mandating action to address injustice, implementation has been inconsistent and
insufficient. The thesis is characterized by a recurring theme: the inadequate implementation
of PIL petitions, which underscores the constraints of the legal system in facilitating social
change. Additionally, the judges have not advanced to the extent that the initiators of the
litigation had anticipated in the orders.

This analysis concentrates on the legal process, examining the reasons for the emergence of
PIL, the objectives that were intended to be achieved, and the reasons for specific outcomes.
The discussion was framed by the initial fieldwork, as many petitioners, who had approached
the courts out of concern for poverty and inequality, were dismayed in the results of using
law. The examination of PIL serves as a microcosm for the examination of the Indian legal
system, offering a more comprehensive comprehension of the inherent constraints and
potentialities associated with the application of law.

The structure and operation of the Indian Constitution, as well as the legal framework into
which it was introduced, have inexorably influenced the shape of PIL. This chapter focuses
on the period up to 1979 and identifies numerous issues that are relevant to the study of PIL
in terms of the legal and political process. The legal framework will be assessed subsequent
to an examination of the constitutional imperatives12.

International influences, the precursor to PIL, and the increasing concern for access to justice
and legal aid are then discussed. The chapter will conclude with an introduction to the
analysis in the remaining sections of the thesis.

12
Bohra, S. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice Introduction. [online] Available at:
https://www.manupatra.com/roundup/379/Articles/Public%20Interest%20Litigation.pdf.

26
2.1. CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Modem India places a high value on the law and attorneys. During the colonial period, an
adversarial legal system and a legal profession were established to support it. This occurred
when the existing systems of adjudication were supplanted by legislation and court orders.
The newly independent India inherited this structure. The Constituent Assembly, which was
established on December 9, 1946, to draft a constitution, was composed of numerous
attorneys. However, the Constitution of India was not adopted until November 26, 1950. The
Constitution established a parliamentary system of governance, which delineated the extent
of judicial authority and its organization, as well as a bill of rights. The Constitution, which
embodied the promise of a new era and the choice of a modern polity and legal system,
envisioned a professionalized state:

The Constitution's eclectic blend of elements, which are derived from the state tradition of
European constitutions and Anglo-American legal traditions, has presented significant
challenges in its implementation. It envisions a state that possesses the necessary "steering"
capacity over society to achieve its programmatic objectives. The judiciary and constitutional
law are burdened with the responsibility of reviving a tradition that is, in fact, absent.
However, numerous discussions had anticipated the judiciary's capabilities and their potential
applications13.

The Supreme Court initiated the process of issuing judgments that utilized its judicial review
authority shortly after the Constitution was implemented. The Court's activism was
demonstrated through the efforts of judges to assert their judicial review powers, which
included the examination of detention cases and the upholding of the right to freedom of
speech and expression in other instances. The government initially amended the Constitution
in 1951 in response to these orders to safeguard specific statutes from judicial review and to
alter some of the rights that citizens were granted. The judiciary and the legislature had
initiated a historic conflict, with the former issuing orders in favour of proprietors whose
property was threatened by land reform legislation, and the latter utilizing its constitutional
amendment powers to thwart these orders. The power of constitutional amendment was
extensively employed, and the availability of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution was
delineated.

13
Priest, G.L. and Klein, B. (1984). The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies,
13(1), pp.1–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/467732.

27
The guiding principles of judicial thought, which are referred to as "desirable conservatism,"
have led to a frequent conflict between Fundamental Rights and the legislative measures that
have attempted to uphold the Directive Principles of State Policy. This also explains the
conflicting attitudes of Parliament and the Supreme Court toward justice, as the judiciary has
been predominantly conservative in its approach to invalidating laws that have attempted to
enact social change.'
Indira Gandhi's Congress (I) Government, which was elected in 1971 with the objective of
passing constitutional amendments to "overcome the impediments in the path of social
justice," was resolute in its refusal to yield to any further opposition from the Supreme Court.
The incumbent Congress Government had advocated for a "committed" judiciary in its
election platform to facilitate the realization of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The
power of appointment of the Chief Justice of India and other judges was mobilized in support
of the legislature when it was determined in 1973 that the Constitution contained a "basic
structure" that could not be amended. This action was taken to implement the election call. In
addition to. In 1973, Justice V R Krishna Iyer, who served as the Independent Law Minister
in Kerala's inaugural Communist Government, and Justice P N Bhagwati were appointed to
the Supreme Court. Despite the widespread recognition that "progressive" was becoming a
code word for Mrs. Gandhi's partisan interest, the doctrine of a "committed" judiciary, which
was dedicated to the policies of the government, was to have unforeseen repercussions. It was
these judges who were to initiate PIL. The control of judicial appointments had many fewer
positive effects.
The practice of appointing the senior most sitting judge as Chief Justice was disregarded for
political considerations, and three senior judges who had issued orders against the
government were replaced.* All three submitted their resignations. The Supreme Court's
ambiance underwent a noticeable transformation during this period, as observed by Justice H
R Kharma, a sitting judge who was subsequently replaced14.

The court's shift in approach was one of the new trends, with the intention of favouring the
enforcement of government orders. The court issued orders that had the effect of unsettled
established principles and diluted or undoing the dicta established in previous cases, all while

14
Srivastava, G.S. (2018). Public Interest Litigation. LAW REVIEW, 37(01).
doi:https://doi.org/10.29320/jnpglr.v37i01.11010.

28
using lofty terms such as "social justice."
The Court was beginning to exhibit a fissure.

Subsequent events undermined the Supreme Court's legitimacy and authority. In 1975, Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of internal emergency in response to mounting dissent
and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court that found her guilty of violating the election
code. She sought to legitimize this declaration through the law and the courts.
The Supreme Court permitted the suspension of civil liberties at this time due to its inability
or unwillingness to oppose the government. Under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act
of 1971, detentions were implemented throughout India in an effort to suppress dissent.
Habeas corpus petitions were submitted in numerous High Courts to contest the detention
orders, alleging that they infringed upon the constitutional rights to life and personal liberty.
The petitions were permitted, despite the government's challenge to their admissibility, which
was based on the fact that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution had been suspended by a
Presidential Order. The State's appeal to the Supreme Court was granted, and the petitions
were dismissed. Justice Bhagwati, who was later hailed as the father of PIL in India, issued a
judgment that advocated for the suspension of Article 21 of the Constitution. He stated, "I do
not believe that it would be appropriate for me to allow my affection for personal liberty to
obscure my vision or to compel me to impose a construction on the relevant provision of the
Constitution that its language cannot reasonably support." He also stated, "The Constitution is
the law of all laws, and it is the sole source of support and final resting place for judicial
conscience." I have reached the conclusion that the Presidential Order dated June 27, 1975,
prohibits the maintenance of a writ petition for habeas corpus in cases where an order of
detention is challenged on the basis of its mala fideness, noncompliance with the Act, or
noncompliance with the Constitution. This conclusion is based on judicial compulsion and a
spirit of humility and obedience to the Constitution.
Justice H R Kharma was the sole individual who dissented, and he was subsequently replaced
as the Chief Justice of India." On March 12, 1977, he tendered his resignation from his
position as a Supreme Court judge."

The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act. 1976, despite its intention to empower the
executive and disempower the judiciary, did introduce elements to the Constitution that
would be significant in PIL cases. For instance, the introduction of a section on Fundamental
Duties and an amendment to the Directive Principles of State Policy to include the right to

29
free legal aid. The republic of India was proclaimed socialist in this amendment. The Indian
Parliament's determination to transform the economic order and establish social justice
through State action was evident in the constitutional amendments, as Justice Krishna Iyer
noted. Concurrently, legislation was implemented to guarantee social justice, such as the
Bonded Labour System Abolition Act of 1976. The new Supreme Court appointees initiated
procedural reforms that would serve as the foundation for PIL prior to the declaration of
Emergency and during Emergency Rule.

The primary advocate for these modifications was Justice Krishna Iyer. Despite having been
criticized for his lengthy and occasionally erratic judgments, he was the first to enunciate the
necessity of an interpretation of statutory provisions that was sympathetic to the particulars of
a case and the need to expand the scope of locus standi. He emphasized the significance of
relaxed standing provisions in the context of the injustices as early as 1976.

Prevalent in India: Conceptual latitudinarianism allows for the taking of liberties when the
remedy is shared by a significant number, particularly when they are inferior, and public
interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi in our socio-economic
circumstances.

A new epoch in the Supreme Court had commenced with these sporadic judgments. A
struggle over access to justice and the assertion of public rights against the state were
combined with practical attempts to counter injustices. The Constitution (Forty-third
Amendment) Act. 1977 and the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment!) Act. 1978 were
enacted to restore the structure of the Constitution to its pre-Emergency state after the Janata
Government was elected at the end of the Emergency in 1977. The importance of the
Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution was reinstated; however, certain
provisions, including the right to free legal aid and the Fundamental Duties, were left in
place. However, the Constitution's provisions were still being abused, such as the ordinance
promulgation powers outlined in Article 123 of the Constitution, despite the return to a more
normal state of governance.^^ The purpose of PIL was to investigate the issues concerning
the judiciary and the utilization of constitutional provisions that had arisen in the years
following independence. One analyst has observed that the Emergency exposed the
shortcomings of the post-Independence methods of development adopted by successive
administrations, as well as the ongoing impoverishment and marginalization of millions of

30
people. The Court was to be tasked with the responsibility of guaranteeing the integrity of
governance.

A sitting Supreme Court Judge emphasized that convictions were rendered under the
Emergency due to the absence of rights, characterizing PIL as "an assertion of judicial
review." When hearing cases that related to the Emergency excesses and the limitation of
fundamental rights by the Government, the Supreme Court began to exhibit a change.^^
Some have interpreted this as an attempt by the judiciary to reestablish its status as an
independent institution of the state, possessed of integrity, and deserving of the respect it had
forfeited in previous years when it was unable to protect civil liberties during the Emergency.
During the first two decades of the Constitution, Upendra Baxi characterized the battle to
capture judicial power on behalf of the dominant classes as having been transformed into a
struggle for constraining judicial power "on behalf, if not at the behest\ of the dominated
classes." This, in turn, led to the judicial activism of the 1980s. Baxi wrote this in 1991, with
a perspective on the decades since 1950.

Consequently, the Court identified a focus in convicts' rights cases and focused on the
procedural barriers to accessing justice. It was the first time that many individuals who was
detained during the Emergency were made aware of the conditions in institutions, and they
had come to the realization that few individuals had the resources or knowledge to approach
the courts independently. The procedures regulating habeas corpus were relaxed in a series of
cases, and the issues raised were resolved with a sense of compassion for those who were
incarcerated in appalling conditions.* The scope of Article 21 of the Constitution was
examined, and in 1980, Justice Krishna Iyer ruled that the State is only obligated to imprison
a person under a law that is reasonable, fair, and just in procedure when read in conjunction
with Articles 14 and 19. Iyer stated, "It is too obvious to require clarification that to cast a
person in prison because of his poverty and resulting failure to meet his contractual liability is
appalling."
In a 1978 judgment, this judge also noted that, despite the significant advancements in
policing methods, there was still torture and the abuse of power.

The grounds for departing from the recent tradition of judicial decision-making were so
severe that they transcended the legal correctness that had previously influenced the Supreme
Court's judgments. This was due to the severity of the endemic issues in India. Judges,
activists, lawyers, and academics acknowledged that action was necessary, and the courts

31
were regarded as the sole alternative, the "last resort," in the absence of extra-legal action.
Predicting the outcome of a novel form of judgment. Justice Krishna Iyer was able to focus
on a social justice perspective that could only be achieved through procedural modifications.
He stated in a 1980 judgment that the court's issues required a transition from the traditional
individualism of locus standi requirements to the community orientation of public interest
litigation. He advocated for the liberalization of procedures and referred to the alternative to
the law as "the streets." We are certain that the rule of law must convince the aggrieved
individual to attend the law court and transition from the lawless streets.
This echoed the concerns of B R Ambedkar, who had emphasized the necessity of resolving
the contradiction between the constitutionally established equality in political life and the
inequality that is prevalent in social and economic life during the Constituent Assembly
Debates. In his words, "We must remove this discrepancy at the earliest possible moment, or
else those who experience disparities will blow up the structure of democracy which the
Assembly has so laboriously built up."

The Legal Framework Law in India has been variously defined as a set of policies declared
by the government, the activity of law courts, a strategic weapon for (repression and
facilitative use) by various individuals and groups and by agencies of the State, an activity of
a professional group of lawyers, a process of litigation and the manner and conditions under
which this process of litigation can be put into effect, a bureaucracy of judges operating
within the context of the institutional framework of law courts, and a hegemony of ideas that
is both symbolic and rhetorical and capable of acting in certain limited situations when the
pressure of other aspects of the law is not too great or too subtle.
In this context, PIL, which was established in response to an acknowledged crisis in the
Indian legal system, offers a microcosm for the examination of the numerous aspects of law.
The characteristics of the Constitution fostered a belief in the use of law for disempowered
peoples, despite the lack of respect for the rule of law and the prevailing governmental
lawlessness. The Constitution established the groundwork for a society that was more
equitable, a goal that had yet to be achieved after forty years of constitutional governance.
Additionally, the influence of numerous authoritarian provisions in the Constitution was
greater than that of the social justice texts, which comprised only a small portion of the entire
document.

The subsequent sections examine the ideological framework of constitutionally guaranteed

32
rights, the constitutional remedies that are available for the enforcement of these rights, and
the statutory provisions that are pertinent to the study of public interest law.

2.2. RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY CONSTITUTION

The Constituent Assembly's dedication to social equity has been encapsulated in the Indian
Constitution's sections of rights. In 1976, Part IVA, the Fundamental Duties, was added to
Part III, the Fundamental Rights, and Part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy. The
Constituent Assembly was influenced by the natural law concepts that were prevalent in
eighteenth-century Europe when it formulated the rights in Part III. The Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, which was promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, was in
conjunction with the understanding of extant constitutions and their declarations of rights.®^
With the exception of Articles 15(2), 17 and 23, which were intended to safeguard the
individual from other citizens, the Fundamental Rights guaranteed justiciable civil and
political rights that could be exercised against the state. Many of the fundamental rights were
accompanied by "reasonable restrictions," which defined their availability and permitted the
State to disregard them in specific situations. The debates in the Constituent Assembly
regarding the incorporation of the right to "due process" in the right to life and personal
liberty resulted in a more attenuated version of the phrase. Consequently, the ultimate
decision regarding the shape of constitutional rights was influenced by concerns regarding the
imposition of judicial powers that exceeded those of the other branches of government.

Directive Principles of State Policy, which are representative of social and economic liberties,
were rendered non-justiciable. The new social order that was envisioned for independent
India was defined by this compromise, which rendered civil and political rights justiciable
while leaving the realization of economic and social rights to the expected governmental
policies rather than judicial directive15.

The constitutional scheme of rights has been the subject of criticism by those who are
concerned with the specific context in which it operates. While some advocates for human
rights as civil and political rights, others have concentrated on economic and social rights.
15
Agrawal, A. (2018). Public Interest Litigation: A Critical Review. International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development, Volume-2(Issue-5), pp.935–940. doi:https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd17001.

33
More recently, a need-based, situation-specific theory of community rights has been
discussed. Waldron presents the historical antecedents of the contemporary critique of human
rights, and he observes that modern rights theorists diverge from the historical critiques by
emphasizing welfare rights and the notion that rights can express claims about need rather
than solely individual freedom. The argument was further developed by Dhavan and
Partington in a discussion of the "new" benefits that were being provided to the impoverished
and marginalized through PIL.

These entitlements include greater emphasis on the social dimensions of the right to equality,
an expansion of the scope of political participation, and social welfare rights (which are part
of the "third generation" of community rights).
In 1978, the interpretation of constitutional rights was being developed in an endeavor to
realize constitutional objectives, despite the fact that the courts had been restricted in their
interpretation. This was accomplished by modifying the procedures for the enforcement and
restriction of rights. For instance, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, it was
determined that the process of denying an individual their right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution must be reasonable, equitable, and just.

As Justice Bhagwati stated, the Court should endeavor to broaden the scope and application
of the fundamental rights, rather than diminishing their significance and content through a
judicial construction process16.

Until the selection of activist judges who were to unleash their potential, numerous provisions
of Part IV of the Constitution, which encompassed economic and social rights, had been
dormant. Justice Krishna Iyer, one of these judges, asserted the following in 1976:

In the creative Indian context, statutory interpretation may seek guidance from the lodestar of
Part IV of the Constitution, such as Articles 39(a) and (c) and Article 43. The construction
that is in accordance with the social philosophy of Part IV is given preference when two
judicial alternatives are available. Consequently, the rights of groups were first acknowledged
through the process of public interest litigation (PIL). This phenomenon was characterized as
a challenge and an opportunity for the government and its officers to ensure that fundamental
human rights are meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable section of the community and to
16
Razzaq, M. (2014). Public Interest Litigation in Anti-Dumping Laws. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2484351.

34
ensure that they receive socio-economic justice in a leading PIL judgment.

India substantially ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights, 1966, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, following
the emergency in 1979, which served to reinforce the trend.

2.3. CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES

ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Granville Austin conducted an analysis of the discussions regarding the extent of the
remedies that are available in Article 32 of the Indian Constitution during his research.*" He
observed that the prerogative writs were widely regarded as "the cornerstone of freedom and
liberty" and that, despite the existence of conventional remedies for the enforcement of rights,
they provided teeth to the fundamental rights provisions. A member of the Constituent
Assembly stated the following regarding Article 32 of the Constitution:

I would be unable to refer to any other article in this Constitution if I were asked to identify a
specific article as the most significant, an article without which this Constitution would be
rendered null and void. It is the Constitution's very essence and its absolute core.

The writs in this article were an adaptation of the English system, which allowed the Supreme
Court to issue writs and orders in the form of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas
corpus, and quo warrant17.

The development of Article 32 in the late 1970s served as the foundation for its application in
PIL. The Supreme Court issued a commentary on the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution
in 1950, shortly after the Constitution was established. The court distinguished it from
Articles 226 and 131-139 of the Constitution.
This remedial right is rendered a fundamental right by its inclusion in Part III, and Article 32
guarantees a remedy for the enforcement of those rights. Thus, this Court is designated as the
protector and guarantor of fundamental rights. It is impossible for it to decline to consider
applications that seek protection against infringements of these rights in accordance with the
17
Vandenhole, W. (2000). People, Law, and Justice: A Casebook of Public-Interest Litigation, and: Supreme
Court on Public Interest Litigation: Cases and Materials, The Debate over Original Intent,I - IV (review).
Human Rights Quarterly, 22(4), pp.1110–1114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2000.0051.

35
responsibility that has been entrusted to it.
In 1955, the Supreme Court ruled that the writs' scope was as follows:
Given the explicit provisions in our Constitution, there is no need to revisit the early history
or procedural minutiae of these writs in English law, nor to feel constrained by any difference
or change of opinion expressed in specific cases by English Judges.

Justice Gagendragadkar had ruled in 1961 that the Court would not decline to consider a
petition lodged under Article 32 of the Constitution on the basis that it involved a
determination of disputed questions of fact.

In our view, the term "appropriate proceedings" refers to proceedings that may be appropriate
in light of the nature of the order, direction, or writ that the petitioner is seeking from this
Court, when interpreted fairly under Article 32(1). The citizen's right to petition the Court
through appropriate proceedings is contingent upon the specific writ or order that he claims.

Thus, the procedures that were intended to facilitate access to justice had already been
discussed in the courtroom. For instance, the Court relinquished its initial directive to confirm
that the right to invoke Article 32 of the Constitution could not be impacted by the existence
of an alternative remedy18.

Although these orders provided the Supreme Court with a broad range of options, the chance
was not capitalized on at the outset. The Supreme Court's constitutional work was limited,
and the number of fundamental rights cases was relatively insignificant. Nevertheless, the
mid-1970s saw an increase in the number of fundamental rights cases being filed.' In 1979, a
statement was released in reference to the amount of pendency in the Supreme Court. The
petitions were categorized as "constitutional matters," which are subject to the court's original
jurisdiction, and "non-constitutional". Of the 15,256 cases currently outstanding in the
Supreme Court, 1015 were writ petitions. One of these petitions had been pending for nearly
nine years.

This potential was to be realized by PIL, which generated a comprehensive interpretation of

this article:

18
Ghosh, P. (2013). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2285517.

36
When interpreting Article 32, it is important to remember that the Court's approach must be
guided not by any verbal or formalistic canons of construction, but by the primary object and
purpose for which this article has been enacted as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution.
The interpretation of this article must be illuminated by the trinity of provisions that permeate
and energise the entire Constitution, namely the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights, and the
Directive Principles of State Policy.

The primary method of articulating the Court's powers, the function of a constitutional court,
and the extent to which it can provide remedies was through public interest litigation19.

ARTICLE 226

Article 32 of the Constitution was exclusively invoked to enforce fundamental rights;

however, the courtroom discourse regarding Article 226 of the Constitution has been focused
on determining when it may be employed to enforce any rights. Over time, the High Courts'
authority has been defined. The Supreme Court has determined that the availability of an
alternative remedy could restrict access to Article 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court
would have discretionary authority to determine whether a petition would be accepted. This
decision was made due to the broad scope of the potential application of Article 226.

The potential for PIL in Article 226 of the Constitution was indicated in a number of cases, as
was the case with Article 32 of the Constitution. In 1966, the Supreme Court found that this
article grants the High Courts extensive authority to "reach injustice wherever it is found,"
thereby allowing the High Courts to "Mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and intricate
requirements of this country." In 1974, it was determined that all inhabitants of a municipality
have a personal interest in the actions of a municipal body and, as a result, would have locus
standi to petition the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. These initiatives were
only consolidated into the extensive use of this article, and therefore of Article 136 of the
Constitution, the discretionary right to appeal to the Supreme Court in a special leave
petition, through the use of PIL.

19
PHILLIPS, B. (1997). PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. Australian Planner, 34(3), pp.171–172.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.1997.9657775.

37
2.4. PROCEDURES

In addition to habeas corpus petitions, which afforded the right to stand in a representative
capacity, provisions such as Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In 1908, exceptions
were made for individuals of unsound mind or minors.'°' Provisions for class actions, which
were initiated by individuals who shared a common interest in the outcome of a litigation,
were more influential in the development of PIL. According to Section 91 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (1908), the court may grant standing to two or more individuals in instances
of public nuisance at its discretion. Similar provisions are present in Section 92 and Order 1,
Rule 8 of the Code.

The courts were granted intrinsic discretionary powers by other provisions. The inherent
power of "the Court to make such orders as may be needed to achieve the ends of law and to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court" was preserved by Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure in 1908. The inherent powers of the "High Court to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" were preserved by Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. 1973. Furthermore, the judiciary was equipped to adequately address
any type of complaint by provisions such as Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
1860.
The potential to expand access to justice and the issues presented before the court, which had
been dormant in these statutory provisions, had been mobilized prior to independence20.

In 1924, nearly one hundred individuals submitted a petition to the Sub-Divisional Office of
Siwan in Bihar. They all resided in close proximity to a river that they asserted had been
contaminated by effluents from a nearby mill. They had been motivated to invoke section 133
of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the contamination of the drinking water, the
mortality of certain cattle, and the apprehension of disease. Standing was granted to the
petitioners, and the issue's justiciability was maintained, despite the fact that the case was
unsuccessful at both the local and High Court levels.

20
Admin (2021). Can a writ be converted to PIL? [Get the Answers at BYJU’S]. [online] BYJUS. Available at:
https://byjus.com/ias-questions/can-a-writ-be-converted-to-pil/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

38
This was reiterated in 1979, when Chief Justice Y V Chandrachud supported the order of a
Magistrate who ordered the closure of a bakery on the grounds that the smoke emanated from
its chimney was causing a public nuisance. He argued that the matter was of concern to the
public at large, rather than just an individual right. A class action petition to the Magistrate's
Court in Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, was filed by citizens of the municipality, who were
concerned about the insufficient drainage in the area. This petition was the source of Justice
Krishna Iyer's judgment, which is likely one of the most influential and extensively quoted.
The Magistrate approved the petition and also instructed the city to clean the drainage
systems and create a plan for the elimination of nuisances.

The Supreme Court received the petition on appeal, and the primary inquiry it addressed was
whether a court might compel a statutory body to fulfil its obligations to the community
through affirmative action.

In reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code. Justice Krishna
Iyer stated:

Although these two Codes are of ancient origin, the Constitution of India has imbued them
with a new social justice orientation, rendering them a versatile remedial weapon. The people
are entitled to social justice; therefore, they must have the ability to activate the jurisdiction
that has been granted to any public official, such as a Magistrate, under S. 133, Cr. P. C. The
judiciary must be informed by Article 38 of the Constitution in the exercise of this power21.

The substantive issue was associated with the necessity of a sympathetic understanding of
statutory provisions and access to justice. We are confronted with a few profound processual
jurisprudence issues that are of great importance to our legal system. We must focus on these
issues, as they pertain to issues of access to justice for individuals who are not subject to the
convoluted rules of "standing" of British Indian origin. These issues must be taken into
account if the Preamble of the Constitution mandates that the centre of gravity shift from the
conventional individuality of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest
litigation.

Although these provisions were soon to be replaced by the writ jurisdiction under Articles 32
21
Garg, R. (2023). Difference between PIL and writ - iPleaders. [online] iPleaders. Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/difference-between-pil-and-writ/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

39
and 226 of the Constitution, which provided a more direct and expedited access to the courts,
the content of statutes was to facilitate the emergence of PIL, as they were framed or
amended in accordance with the principles of social justice.

Not only procedural provisions were necessary, but also the substantive content of laws. This
point is illustrated by a class action lawsuit filed by rickshaw pullers from Punjab, which
challenges the validity of the Punjab Cycle Rickshaws (Regulation of Rickshaws') Act.
1975.The Court responded to the petition by establishing a scheme in accordance with the
current Act. Much of the current legal framework contained the components that were
essential for PIL to thrive in the courtroom, both in terms of procedural and substantive
aspects.

THE COURT AND IT’S REGULATIONS

The administrative structure of the courts and the regulations that govern their operations
have increased the costs of litigation and the challenges associated with obtaining access to
justice. The Supreme Court and High Courts have a broad jurisdiction, which encompasses
both their appellate and original aspects. “The constantly changing rules of procedure of the
Supreme Court provide comprehensive regulations to be followed within the Court, and when
approaching it."^ The functional criteria for filing a writ petition, as outlined in Order XXXV,
Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1966, would appear to preclude the admission of letters
as writ petitions.^ Rather than being employed to avert the emergence of PIL, other
provisions in these regulations, which granted the Court discretionary financial powers,
enhanced the existing opportunities to increase access to justice and to facilitate PIL
petitions22.

ACCESSS TO JUSTICE

The specifics and features of a legal system that consistently excludes many from its ambit
are the only context in which concerns regarding the availability of justice can be considered.
Upendra Baxi has documented this exclusion in his seminal book on the widespread crisis of

22
advocatekhoj.com (2024). Can a Writ Petition be Treated as a Public Interest Litigation | Public Interest
Litigation | Areas of Law | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj. [online] Advocatekhoj.com. Available at:
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawareas/publicinterestlitigation/petition.php?Title=Public%20Interest
%20%20%20Litigation&STitle=Can%20a%20Writ%20Petition%20be%20Treated%20as%20a%20Public
%20Interest%20Litigation [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

40
the Indian legal system. This exclusion had previously been observed in studies of the United
States of America. PIL was initiated when judges, lawyers, and activists advocated for the
incorporation of all citizens within the realm of court action. The offering of legal aid to those
who lacked the financial resources to approach the Court was the focal point of the
discussions regarding access to justice.

The Supreme Court ruled right after the Indian constitution was implemented that, while legal
aid was not mandatory, a court of appeal or revision could intervene if it believed that the
accused was denied a fair trial as a result of the denial of such aid. Justice Krishna Iyer, who
served as an Independent Minister in the inaugural Communist State Government of Kerala,
established the first documented legal aid program in India following independence. Section
76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1960 enabled the establishment of a
legal benefit fund, and the Legal Aid (To The Poor) Rules. 1958 were constituted. This
example was emulated by other states in the development of their own initiatives 23.

Legal aid did not become a national priority until the 1970s, when it was given by a large
number of state governments. In 1973, a new Code of Criminal Procedure was implemented,
which required the funding of legal aid under Section 304. Committees were established by
state governments to suggest the structure of a legal assistance scheme. The central
government's decision to create a committee in 1973 was the most significant such
development. The expert committee, which is presided over by the newly elected Supreme
Court justice. The provision of legal aid for the weaker sectors of the community, individuals
of limited means, and those belonging to socially and economically backward classes was to
be reviewed by Justice Krishna Iyer and ten other members. The Krishna Iyer Committee
report, which spanned nearly 300 pages, was the first of its kind. In addition to elucidating
the necessity of legal aid, the report suggested that legal aid centres should engage in
litigation on behalf of their clients, a model that would later be referred to as

The report was subsequently criticized by the government, which was hesitant to allocate
funds to an erratic service; by lawyers, who perceived it as little more than a request for them
to provide their services at a reduced rate or for free; by voluntary activists, who were
promised only a visible presence on various organizations; and by the disadvantaged, who

23
RATHINAM, F.X. and RAJA, A.V. (2011). Courts as regulators: public interest litigation in India.
Environment and Development Economics, 16(2), pp.199–219. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x11000015.

41
perceived the proposals as an invitation to become further entangled in the "law as a social
trap." However, the report was the initial phase of the central government's increasing
concern regarding access to justice and marked the beginning of a new agenda.

Legal aid was incorporated into the Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy
during the Emergency. Concurrently, the Code of Civil Procedure.
1976 saw the amendment of 1908 to include Order 33, Rule 9A, '^^, and Rule 18. The same
amendment modified the language of Order 44 of the Code, which outlines the process for
appeals and the submission of fees by an indigent individual. The Congress (I) Government
appointed an additional committee, this time with Justice P N Bhagwati as the chairman,
Justice Krishna Iyer as the solitary member, and Shri N L Vaidhyanathan as the secretary.

The committee's suggestions on legal aid were comprehensive, beginning with the previous
report of the Krishna Iyer Committee. 1977 marked the publication of the Bhagwati
Committee report.’ The report observed that the fundamental transformation of the
preexisting socio-economic structure was necessary for the removal of poverty, and as such,
the philosophy, objectives, and principles of a new legal services program should be the focus
of the program. Therefore, the program would be required to provide representation to
"groups of social and economic protest" and to promote a group-oriented and institution-
directed approach to the issue of poverty.
and to develop novel legal strategies and methodologies to address the issues of the
impoverished, such as class action and group-interest litigation24.'

Draft legislation was proposed, conciliation was encouraged, and a national legal aid
authority was suggested. Two recommendations were included in the 24 functions of the
national authority: that it takes "necessary steps by litigation or otherwise" to ensure
consumer protection, environmental control, and any other matter of special concern to the
public, and that it recruit the backing of social service organizations. The report continued
this theme by proposing that a strategy to defend the rights of individuals who are unable to
pursue a remedy due to poverty and a lack of assertiveness would be to grant the Director of
the national authority the authority to establish suitable procedures and be granted the
authority to do so. An example of a situation that would necessitate the director to take action
was the failure to pay minimum wages to agricultural labour.
24
Chandra, A. (2018). Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India. International
Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(2), pp.710–718. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy045.

42
A chapter on "Public Interest Litigation and Legal Aid" was included in the report. This
chapter identified collective injustices associated with untouchability, mental retardation,
drug adulteration, and environmental contamination. To illustrate the necessity of public
interest litigation, representation and collective actions, within an active legal aid
organization, it imaginatively connected injustices "inherited and acquired, colonial, feudal,
industrial, political, bureaucratic, and economic" with an expensive, unequal court system.
The report effectively encouraged the filing of PIL and class action petitions by establishing
the parameters of PIL.

The courtroom was where progress toward the provision of increased access to justice was
more tentative. In 1974, Justice Krishna Iyer criticized the Sessions Court judges for failing
to respond with sufficient urgency to the necessity of appointing competent State Counsel for
undefended accused individuals, as they had begun to recognize that the court's scope had
been restricted. In 1978, it was determined that an individual who is a party to a proceeding
may be represented by an individual who is not an advocate in the absence of a
comprehensive program of gratis legal services. In the same year, a public defender system
was proposed, and the government's obligation to provide legal assistance under Article 21 of
the Constitution was defined. Nevertheless, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India has been cited
as the case that facilitated the provision of justice to the impoverished.^"^" The Supreme
Court effectively introduced the "due process" that had been excluded by the Constituent
Assembly by stipulating that the procedure in Article 21 of the Constitution, which states that
"No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law," be reasonable, fair, and just. Additionally, the court required that Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution be read together. The judicial power that had been appropriated
during the emergency was more than fully restored25.
In 1980, the necessity of a national legal aid program became not only more apparent but also
glaringly absent. The Government Resolution of September 26, 1980, established the
Committee for the Implementation of Legal Aid Schemes (CILAS) with the objective of
implementing comprehensive legal aid schemes throughout India. The organization's
inaugural mandate was three years, and Justice P N Bhagwati served as its chairman.
CILAS was tasked with the implementation of comprehensive legal assistance schemes
throughout India. CILAS funded legal aid camps, Lok Adakats (people's courts), PIL
organizations, and a variety of other activities in addition to monitoring the activities and
25
Anuj Bhuwania (2017). Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India.

43
funding of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (SCLAC), the Legal Aid and Advice
Boards, and High Court Legal Aid Committees in many states. The strategy of PIL was the
subject of discussion at a workshop of social action groups in New Delhi in May 1981, which
was convened to address the implementation of legal services. In the early 1980s, the Court
would emphasize the importance of access to justice through legal aid. Justice P N Bhagwati
has characterized PIL as a strategic component of the legal aid movement26.

26
Deva, S. (2009). Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review. 28(1), pp.19–40.

44
 CHAPTER- 3

JUDICIAL APPROACH ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

CASES
Judicial activism is employed in judgments to provide victims with relief according to their
moral and social equity in the lack or contrasts of legal requirements, and vice versa.
Additionally, there are certain jurists.

Judges who have been proposed in accordance with the custom of common law have
maintained that they are legislators for an extended period. The misconception is that their
bodies either discover the law or elucidate it. The American realist movement brazenly
declared that the judge had passed the law, dispelling this myth. The legislative function of
the court is plainly demonstrated by the U.S. Supreme Court's experience in elucidating open-
ended expressions, such as the Equal Protection Act of legislation and the 14th Amendment.
It is no longer a topic of controversy.104 The scope of the law is expanded when the text of
the law or constitution is ambiguous, lacking explicit regulations or a basic structure 27.

The development of laws is not a subject of dispute among justices. The scope of such
legislation will be broadened in cases where the language of the law or the constitution is
ambiguous, unspecified, or obscure. Judicial discretion is necessarily more extensive when
interpreting a written constitution. Their newfound comprehension of the constitution is the
source of this reluctance.

The statute of the legislature or the government has been considered an ultra vires act, despite
the fact that the Indian courts also conducted judicial review prior to the Constitution for set
aside. In the past, this type of event has been exceedingly uncommon. The scope of judicial
review was restricted prior to the promulgation of the Indian Proclamation Act in 1935. The
pre-Constitutional law does not contain any fundamental rights, as it does not make any
claims. Consequently, the sole justification for the cancellation of legislative or
administrative actions is lack of authority. In accordance with the Constitution, the power of
judicial review is enhanced in both the horizontal and vertical aspect. The custodian and
guarantor responsibilities are assigned to the court, which is also accountable for the
27
Cassels, J. (1989). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible? The
American Journal of Comparative Law, 37(3), p.495. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/840090.

45
protection of fundamental rights.

While the Supreme Court of India acted in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras with an extreme
legalistic stance, refusing to review the laws enacted in accordance with the spirit of the
Constitution, it acknowledged in another case that it has assumed the role of a sentinel for
fundamental rights.109 In this case, Judge Patanjali Shastri acknowledged that the judicial
function inherently entails the selection of policy, and as a result, it inevitably gets impacted
by the personal choices of the judge.
Public interest litigation is a tool that is perceived as a means of bringing justice to the
impoverished and disadvantaged members of society, and it is the outcome of judicial
activism.

It was born as a reaction to the local issues that India and numerous third-world countries
faced, including the persistent exploitation of numerous groups and sectors, injustice, and
even violence. It is based on an ongoing and systematic foundation28.

In this exploited atmosphere, judges must assume a proactive position as their survivors.
Judges are obligated to play a significant role in the prevention and correction of such misuse
and abuse, as well as the elimination of exploitation and injustice. In order to address the
obstacles posed by these new positions, procedural innovations are required. In doing so, the
judiciary is actively engaged in its societal duty and duty to the people of the country,
attempting to free itself from the constraints of Western notions. In order to capitalize on
judicial review, judges implement novel innovations. They have devised novel strategies and
methodologies to ensure that economically and socially marginalized communities are treated
fairly. This innovative interpretation of the judge resulted in the democratization of remedies
to an extent that was inconceivable decades ago. This approach allows ordinary individuals to
achieve justice, thereby preventing the majority of individuals from accomplishing this
objective.

A judge who utilizes his discretion to advance constitutional values and is aware of his
substantial administrative and legislative powers can be referred to as an achiever judge.
When the legislature does not intend to legislate, an activist judge will consider that he has a

28
Ghosh, P. (2013b). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India. SSRN Electronic Journal.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2285517.

46
valid cause to invoke the right to make laws. Additionally, he will enact legislation to
safeguard and protect the human rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Consequently,
the Supreme Court of India has implemented the principle of public interest litigation. This
principle allows the court to be activated in order to prevent the violation of the fundamental
rights of vulnerable groups in accordance with the public spirit of citizens or groups. This is
how the conventional concept of litigation status has undergone a pragmatic transformation,
and even citizens can now activate the court through communications with the assistance of
written messages that are considered writ requests. In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration.

The court responded to a letter written by prison inmate Sunil Batra, which drew attention to
the tragic situation of an equal prisoner who was subjected to physical torment that the
authorities were unable to tolerate. The prisoner composed the letter on a piece of paper and
successfully transmitted it to Judge Krishna Iyer, a member of the Supreme Court. The letter
was interpreted by the erudite judge as a petition, resulting in the initial judicial discourse
regarding the rights of prisoners. Since that time, the Commission has commissioned
numerous letters to individual judges, who have been designated in these letters and tasked
with conducting investigations into the aforementioned matters29.

3.1. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ASPECT OF PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION

The Indian judicial system is a highly visible component of the legacy of the British Raj, and
it continues to rely on a substantial corpus of statutory law and precedents from the colonial
era, with the exception of those that are in direct opposition to our constitutional provisions.
Nevertheless, the designers of our Constitution incorporated the concepts of 'judicial review'
and 'Parliamentary sovereignty', which were derived from a variety of countries. The Indian
judiciary is required to evaluate governmental actions based on three criteria: the
reasonableness of administrative actions, the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the
Constitution, and the division of legislative competence between the Union and the States.

29
Faure, M.G. and Raja, A.V. (2011). Effectiveness of Environmental Public Interest Litigation in India:
Determining the Key Variables.

47
Nevertheless, the 1950s and 1960s saw a vigorous debate regarding the extent of this
"judicial review" power, particularly in relation to the "right to property." In order to facilitate
the implementation of agrarian land reforms, administrations at the Union level and the
majority of states implemented legislation that authorized land acquisition during that period.
Nevertheless, numerous substantial landowners who were compelled to relinquish their
properties filed lawsuits against these laws in the courts, citing, among other things,
inadequate compensation. Despite the fact that the Nehru-led government passed numerous
Constitutional amendments with the intention of protecting these land reform measures from
"judicial review," the courts frequently ruled in favour of the property owners. By the late
1960s, the conflict between the Courts and the Congress Party-controlled Parliament had
evolved into a conflict between the concept of "judicial review" and unqualified
"parliamentary sovereignty." The 'Basic Structure' doctrine was developed by the Supreme
Court in the highly cited case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which was tasked
with determining the extent of Parliament's authority to amend the Constitution 30.

The 'Basic structure' of the Constitution, which the judges believed to encompass elements
such as democracy, rule of law, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review, was
determined to be unamendable by a majority of 7-6. Three of the judges who ruled for the
majority were replaced in the matter of appointment to the position of Chief Justice of India
in 1973, as the aforementioned decision did not curry favour with the Indira Gandhi-led
government of the time. However, the decision had sent an unambiguous message in support
of judicial independence.

At the same time, the Supreme Court's incumbent judges began to recognize that the judiciary
was frequently perceived as an elitist institution that would only provide justice to those who
could afford it. The incumbent executive agencies had also depicted its pro-landowner
decisions as an impediment to the land reforms program. Some judges took the initiative to
address concerns regarding the underprivileged access to justice, acknowledging the
necessity of engaging with the egalitarian Constitutional philosophy. Justice P.N. Bhagwati
had observed in a 1971 report on legal aid that "Even while retaining the adversary system,
some changes may be impacted whereby the judge is given a greater participatory role in the
trial so as to place the poor, as far as reasonably possible, on a footing of equality with the

30
cleartax. (n.d.). What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and What is Its Importance? [online] Available at:
https://cleartax.in/s/public-interest-litigation.

48
rich in the administration of justice."

The report published in 1977 by the Committee on Judicare, which was composed of Justice
V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice Bhagwati, referred to Social Action Litigation as a
supplemental instrument to grassroots legal services programs. Subsequently, these two
justices assumed responsibility for advancing the cause by exercising suo moto jurisdiction
over matters that were addressed to them. Nevertheless, it is crucial to comprehend the other
aspect of the Indian judiciary's "activist" turn, which is a shift in the comprehension of
constitutional rights, prior to elaborating on the use of PIL in several significant cases.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the most representative privilege that can be examined
to illustrate this change. Article 21 states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law." In the initial
years of the Supreme Court, the interpretation of Article 21 was that "personal liberty" could
be restricted provided that a legal justification was in place. In the case of A.K. Gopalan, the
Supreme Court had determined that preventive detention by the state was permissible as long
as it was authorized by a governmental measure (e.g., legislation or an ordinance). The Court
was not permitted to evaluate the equity of such a measure. It was determined that the terms
"procedure established by law" were distinct from the substantive "due process" guarantee
enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Indian
Constitution's architects intentionally selected the term "procedure established by law," which
necessitates a significantly lower threshold for restricting individual liberty. Granville Austin,
a distinguished scholar, has conjectured that the pervasive communal violence that occurred
during the partition may have been the catalyst for this pro-government stance31.

Additionally, it is widely recognized that Justice Felix Frankfurter had advised Shri B.N. Rau,
one of the primary drafters of our constitutional text, regarding the challenges associated with
incorporating a substantive "due process" clause.
It was not until Maneka Gandhi's case that this stance was altered, which had been in effect
for several years. In that case, it was determined that the guarantees of non-arbitrariness,
reasonableness, and fairness that were implicit in the language of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
the Indian Constitution should also be considered when evaluating restraints on 'personal

31
Griffith, J. (1997). Public Interest Litigation and JR. Judicial Review, 2(4), pp.195–203.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.1997.11426962.

49
liberty' protected under Article 21.

Article 14 mandates the guarantee of "equal protection before the law," while Article 19
enumerates the fundamental freedoms that are available to citizens, including free speech,
civil assembly, association, movement, and the pursuit of a livelihood. The Court established
a theory of the "inter-relationship of rights" to maintain that governmental action that
restricted one of these rights must satisfy the established threshold for restraints on all of
them. In this way, the Courts incorporated the guarantee of "substantive due process" into the
language of Article 21. Many commentators have suggested that the 'internal emergency' that
was imposed between June 1975 and March 1977, a period characterized by the use of
arbitrary and unjust detention laws against the political opposition and thousands of ordinary
citizens, was the impetus for this change in the interpretation of Article 21.
The decision in Maneka Gandhi's case served as a precursor to a sequence of decisions that
liberally interpreted the concepts of "life" and "personal liberty." The Supreme Court has
primarily expanded the scope of Article 21 through Public Interest Litigation, which now
encompasses certain socio-economic entitlements that were not explicitly enumerated as part
of the fundamental rights in the Constitution. In the words of Justice Bhagwati: "we think that
the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it,
namely the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the
head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms."
Furthermore, the Indian Courts have transcended their conventional jurisdiction to provide
justice to women, children, indentured labourers, and other oppressed groups of society by
implementing innovative modifications to the process of instituting proceedings, ascertaining
facts, and granting discretionary remedies. It is important to note that the Supreme Court has
confirmed that the Directive Principles enumerated in Part IV and the Fundamental Rights
enumerated in Part III of the Constitution must be interpreted in a harmonious manner. In the
Kesavananda Bharati decision, it was noted that the directive principles and the fundamental
rights are mutually reinforcing and share the common objective of establishing a welfare state
and a social revolution32.

Furthermore, Justice Jeevan Reddy asserted in the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh that the provisions of Parts III and IV are complementary and supplementary
32
CHOWDHURY, N. (2020). Judicial Cartography in Public Interest Litigation in India: Re-reading the
Kudankulam case. Dialogue – Science, Scientists, and Society, 3(1).
doi:https://doi.org/10.29195/dsss.03.01.0024.

50
to one another, rather than exclusionary. He also emphasized that the fundamental rights are
solely a means to an end, as elaborated in Part IV.
The method of reconciling directive principles and fundamental rights has been highly
beneficial. For example, the Supreme Court has employed socio-economic entitlements to
interpret the right to "life and personal liberty." A reporter presented a petition on behalf of
the dozens of pavement inhabitants who had to move as a consequence of the responding
corporation's construction activities in the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
Corporation, for instance.
The Court recognized the 'right to residence and neighbourhood' of the sidewalk residents as
a supplement of the safeguarding of their privacy and existence, and it granted a court order
to prevent their eviction. The Court in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India instituted a "right
to health" by deciding that no medical professional might refuse to offer immediate medical
care in emergency situations. The Court has also cited a "right to a clean atmosphere" that is
derived from Article 21 in numerous instances where it has been requested to intervene in
environmental-related matters.

In the application of the fundamental restrictions against child labour and forced labour, the
Courts have also referenced Directive principles. For constitutional competence purposes,
these actions are classified as those that are within the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
of India under Article 32 of our Constitution and the numerous High Courts under Article
226. Habeas corpus, quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari were the remedies
that could be invoked, and the traditional scope of writ jurisdiction was obviously a colonial
legacy from the British era. However, the Indian Courts have broadened the purview of
constitutional remedies through the introduction of the concept of a "continuing mandamus,"
which involves the issuance of consistent directives and the supervision of their execution by
executive agencies. The Courts have implemented private law remedies, such as injunctions
and "stay" orders, in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases, in addition to devising remedies to
ensure the enforcement of their orders.

The Court has the authority to award the cost of a public interest petition to a petitioner who,
despite not being a member of the legal profession, presented a significant issue before the
court for its consideration, as outlined in Article 32.^ The petitioner had requested that the
court provide the government with instructions to enhance the quality of railway services. In

51
spite of the Court's determination that directions could not be issued due to the Government's
limited resources, it expressed optimism that the government would endeavour to enhance
this public utility service through a more efficient manner. The petitioner was directed to
receive the cost of litigation from the Railway Ministry, as he made a concerted effort to
address the grievances of the community that utilizes Indian Railways, collected a significant
amount of pertinent material, and argued his case in this public interest litigation.
Nevertheless, the Court is unable to award the petitioner damages or compensation for the
humiliation, indignation, and losses they have experienced in accordance with Article 32.

The petitioner in D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, a professor of political science who had
conducted extensive research and was deeply committed to ensuring the proper
implementation of the provisions of the Constitution, challenged the State of Bihar's practice
of repromulgating a number of ordinances without obtaining the legislature's prior approval.
The Court determined that the petitioner, as a member of the public, possesses a "sufficient
interest" in keeping a petition in accordance with Article 32. The right of every citizen to
insist that they be governed by laws that are consistent with the Constitution, rather than laws
that are made by the government in violation of the constitutional limitations. The Court
ordered the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 10,000 to Dr. Wadhawa, whose research exposed this
repressive practice. The Supreme Court is authorized to grant compensation in the form of
exceptional expenses to the petitioner whose constitutional rights have been infringed upon
by the illegal and fraudulent actions of the State and its officials, as per Article 32 of the
Constitution33.

In instances of governmental inaction or inertia, the court has the authority to issue specific
"directions" in public interest litigation to ensure that the Sanctions are enforced in
accordance with the law. In Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, the Court rejected the demand for
the provision of separate schools and hostels for children of prostitutes, as it was not in the
interest of such children. Consequently, it was determined that the High Court was well inside
the boundaries of its jurisdiction in directing the P.W.D. authorities to complete the building
of a road in a poor and Harijan basti and to the Government to make available an additional
sum of Rs. 50,000 for the completion of the work. Through public interest litigation, the
government was requested to provide direction for the implementation of such provisions for
33
Pleming, N. (1998). The Contribution of Public Interest Litigation to the Jurisprudence of JR. Judicial Review,
3(2), pp.63–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.1998.11426994.

52
the offspring of prostitutes in the application under Art. 32.

3.2.ENVIROMENT PRTOECTIION AND PREVENTION OF

POLLUTION
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P^', the Court ordered the closure of
specific limestone quarries due to their severe safety and hazard deficiencies. A committee
was appointed by the Court to conduct an inspection of specific limestone quarries. Due to
the detrimental effects of mining operations, the Committee recommended the closure of
specific categories of stone quarries. The welfare and health of the residents of the region
were significantly impacted by the extensive pollution resulting from limestone quarries.
The Supreme Court in the Shriram Food and Fertilizer case directed the company to
implement all necessary safety measures prior to reopening the plant, as the company
produced toxic as well as deadly chemicals and gases that posed a threat to the health and
lives of its employees and surrounding residents. The facility experienced a chlorine gas leak,
which resulted in the death of one individual and caused significant hardships for the local
residents and workers. The management's negligence in taking care of the Company's caustic
chlorine facility was the cause of this 34. A public interest litigation was initiated to bring the
issue before the Court.

The management was instructed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lacs with the Registrar of the
Court as security for the payment of compensation claims by the victims of the Oleum gas
release. Furthermore, a bank guarantee in the amount of 15 lacs was mandated to be lodged.
This guarantee will be cashed in the event that chlorine gas escapes within three years of the
judgment, resulting in the death or injury of any worker or resident in the vicinity. The Court
permitted the partial reopening of the plant in accordance with these conditions.
It is indeed commendable that the highest court is making efforts to control environmental
contamination through public interest litigation, especially in light of the fact that the
legislature is not adequately prepared to address the challenge, and the administration is not
bridging the gap in the existing legal system.
The Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India ^^ directed the closure of tanneries in

34
匡 俊 (2018). On the Connection between Environmental Public Interest Litigation by Procuratorial Organs and
Environmental Damage Compensation System - An Analysis Based on Judicial Practice -. Chinese Law Review,
36(null), pp.371–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.22415/clr.2018.36..013.

53
Jajmau, near Kanpur, which had polluted the Ganga. The petitioner, a social worker, drew the
matter to the Court's attention through a public interest litigation.
The Court stated that the government has not taken any effective measures to address the
severe public nuisance caused by the tanneries in Jajmau, Kanpur, despite the exhaustive
provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Environmental
(Protection) Act. Due to the circumstances, the Court was permitted to order the closure of
tanneries unless they established treatment facilities35.
In the case of M. C. Mehta (2) v. Union of India, the petitioner initiated a public interest
litigation against Ganga water pollution. The petitioner requested that the Court issue
appropriate directions for the prevention of Ganga water pollution. He asserted that despite
the passage of numerous laws by the Parliament and the State legislatures that impose
responsibilities on the Central and State Boards established under the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act and the municipalities under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika
Adhiniyam, they have remained on paper and no appropriate action has been taken in
accordance with them.

The Supreme Court determined that the petitioner, despite not being a riparian proprietor
(living on the riverside), is entitled to petition the court for the enforcement of a variety of
statutory provisions that impose obligations on municipal and other authorities. He is an
individual who is concerned with the preservation of the lives of those who utilize the Ganga
water. The public nuisance caused by the pollution of the Ganga river is widespread and
impacts the lives of a significant number of individuals. Consequently, any individual has the
ability to initiate legal action to prevent it, as opposed to the community as a whole.
Consequently, the Court directed the Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika to submit its proposals for
the effective prevention and control of water pollution to the Board established under the
Water Act within six months.

The Mahapalika was also instructed to relocate the dairies to a location outside the city and to
ensure that the waste accumulated at the dairies is removed in a manner that prevents it from
reaching the Ganga River. Additionally, the Mahapalika was directed to construct public
latrines and urinals for the use of impoverished individuals at no cost. The Mahapalika was
also directed to take action against the industries responsible for pollution and to grant
35
Zhu, X.Q. and He, J.L. (2013). Development and Outlook of Environmental Public Interest Litigation against
Source Water Pollution – A New Judicial Practice in China. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 316-317,
pp.649–652. doi:https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.316-317.649.

54
licenses to establish new industries only to those who make sufficient provisions for the
treatment of trade effluent that flows out of the factories.
The aforementioned instructions are applicable to all other Mahapalikas and municipalities
that have jurisdiction over the areas through which the Ganga flows36.

The Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India case has established that the
Supreme Court will not accept the argument that a private corporate body is not a "State"
within the meaning of Art. 12 and, as a result, action cannot be taken against it if a person's
fundamental right is violated. It will be the Court's responsibility to intervene if the Court
determines that the Government or relevant authorities have failed to take the action
mandated by law, resulting in a violation of the right to life of the citizens. In this instance, an
environmentalist organization submitted a writ petition under Art. 32 to the court, expressing
concern regarding the plight of individuals residing in the vicinity of chemical industrial
facilities in India and requesting that the court implement appropriate remedial measures. It
was a fact that an industrial complex had developed in the village of Bichari in the Udaipur
district of Rajasthan, and the respondents had established their chemical industries there.
Oleum and single phosphate were among the compounds that were being manufactured by
certain industries. The respondent failed to acquire the necessary licenses and did not install
any apparatus for the treatment of the highly toxic effluents that were discharged.
Consequently, the water in the wells was rendered unsuitable for human consumption. It
disseminates diseases, death, and calamity throughout the village and its environs. In the end,
the villagers revolted against this, which led to the cessation of the production of 'H' acid and
the closure of these industries.

However, the village was harmed by the repercussions of their action. The National
Environment Engineering Research Institute was requested by the Court to investigate the
situation and provide a report. The technical report revealed that approximately 720 tonnes of
waste remained, out of a total of 2440 tons. The respondents had dispersed it throughout the
area and covered it with earth in order to obscure it from the inspection teams' view. Despite
the court's order, they failed to eliminate the sediment. The Supreme Court determined that
the writ was maintainable and directed the Government and the relevant authorities to fulfil
their statutory obligations under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1988, and the Water

36
Kopytova, O.S. (2020). JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND JUDICIAL SELF-
LIMITATION: THE INTERACTION OF LEGAL CATEGORIES IN GENERAL THEORETIC ASPECT.
Private and public law, (2), pp.3–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.32845/2663-5666.2020.2.1.

55
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1947, as amended to date. The Hazardous Wastes
(Management and Handling) Rule, 1989, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981. This is a social action litigation on behalf of the villagers, whose right to life is
violated and infringed upon by the respondents, as evidenced by the numerous reports of the
experts37.

The Court ruled that the respondents were accountable for the entire extent of the harm to the
soil, underground water, and village as a whole. The Court determined that the Central
Government had the authority to determine the cost of remedial measures. The Polluter Pays
principle will be used to determine the liability of the respondents in order to defray the costs
of remedial measures. This principle posits that the offending industry is responsible for
"repairing damage." In another case, M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme
Court ordered the relocation of 168 hazardous industries in Delhi that were posing a threat to
the environment. The court directed that the industries be reallocated to the National Capital
Region in accordance with the Master Plan for Delhi. Effective November 30, 1996, the
Court ordered these industries to cease operations. The Court provided the requisite specific
instructions to safeguard the liberties as well as advantages of the workers who work in these
industries.

3.3. MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND ETHICS

The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India that it is the
most important duty of every member of the medical profession.

(Private or Government) to provide immediate medical assistance to all injured citizens who
are brought for treatment, without waiting for the completion of procedural formalities, in
order to prevent negligent mortality. The Court was informed of the issue by the petitioner, a
human rights activist who is advocating for the general public interest. A report titled "Law
helps the injured to die" was appended to the writ petition and published in the Hindustan
Times. In the aforementioned publication, it is claimed that a scooterist was struck by a
speeding automobile. Upon witnessing his profuse haemorrhaging, an individual who was
traveling on the road rescued the injured individual and transported him to the nearest
37
Fu, H. and Cullen, R. (2009). The Development of Public Interest Litigation in China. SSRN Electronic
Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1512085.

56
hospital.

The doctor declined to attend and requested that he transport him to a hospital that is
authorized to handle medicolegal cases and is situated approximately 20 kilometres away.
The victim was transported to the hospital by the fellow, but he passed away due to his
injuries before he could arrive. The Court ruled that it is the responsibility of those
responsible for the community's health to preserve the life of both the blameless and the
guilty. The concept of death by negligence is not addressed in social regulations.
Additionally, the Court mandated that the Court's decision be published in all legal journals
and that the national media, as well as Doordarshan and All India Radio, provide sufficient
publicity. If implemented with integrity, this decision would prevent the deaths of numerous
citizens who are injured in accidents or rivalries due to the delay in receiving medical
assistance, which was not available to them without the completion of specific legal
procedures by the police38.

Opportunities for employment for individuals with disabilities—The Supreme Court has
ruled in the case of National Federation of Blind v. U.P.S.C. that the visually impaired (blind
and partially blind) are eligible to compete and write civil services examinations in the group
'A' and 'B' posts that are suitable for the handicapped in Braille script or with the assistance of
a Scribe. This directive was issued by the Court in response to the representative petition
submitted by the National Federation of Blind. The court declared that the visually impaired
are a substantial segment of our society and, as such, it is imperative to promote their
involvement in all aspects of life.

The authority to convert a death sentence to life imprisonment—

In the case of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P., it was determined that the Supreme Court has
been granted a broad range of authority under Article 32 to ensure the proper and impartial
administration of justice. In the interest of administration and the prevention of evident
injustice, this inherent power is to be exercised in extraordinary situations. Consequently, the
court commuted the petitioner's death sentence to life imprisonment on the basis that the
38
ANI (2024). Delhi HC dismisses PIL to mandate all medical professionals to specify possible risks of
associated drug. [online] The Economic Times. Available at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/delhi-hc-dismisses-pil-to-mandate-all-medical-professionals-
to-specify-possible-risks-of-associated-drug/articleshow/110265687.cms?from=mdr [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

57
court had commuted the sentence of one of his co-accused. The Court suggested that the
President should typically exercise his authority under Article 72 to commute the death
sentence, as he has reviewed the petitioner's clemency petition and denied it. However, if he
neglects to exercise his authority, the court will intervene to ensure that justice is served in a
specific instance. In the event of an undue delay in the implementation of a death sentence,
the Supreme Court is authorized to commute it into life imprisonment under Article 32.

Nevertheless, it is impossible to establish a specific time frame for the conversion of a death
sentence to life imprisonment. The court will evaluate the nature of the delay in the context of
all the circumstances of the case and subsequently determine whether a death sentence should
be executed or converted to life imprisonment39.'

The safeguarding of the dignity and honour of the courts—In the Delhi Judicial

In the case of Service Association v. State of Gujarat, the Court for the first time sentenced
five police officers, including an I.P.S., to jail after they were found guilty of committing
criminal contempt of the Judicial Magistrate Court. The officers were accused of harassing
and handcuffing the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nadiad, district Klieda, in the state of
Gujarat. A tragic event occurred in the municipality of Nadiad, located in the state of Gujarat,
on September 25, 1989. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was publicly transported to the
hospital for a medical examination after being detained, assaulted, and handcuffed by the
Police Inspector of Nadiad. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was reportedly accused of violating
the State Prohibition Law by consuming liquor. He was tied with a thick rope resembling that
of an animal. The dignity of the institutions in the country was compromised by the incident.
A petition under Article 32 was submitted to the Supreme Court by a member of the Indian
Judges Associations and the Bar Associations in order to preserve the dignity and honour of
the judiciary. Seven police officers were issued notices of contempt by the Court. The court
appointed Justice R. M. Sahai of the Allahabad High Court to investigate the incident and
submit a report to the court, as there was a dispute between the parties regarding the entire
incident. The seven police officers were convicted of criminal contempt and subsequently
imprisoned as a result of this report.

39
Pranjal Kumar Sinha (2024). Life Imprisonment Quandaries: Legal Perspectives And Sentencing Complexity.
[online] Livelaw.in. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/articles/life-imprisonment-quandaries-legal-
perspectives-and-sentencing-complexity-249501.

58
 Women Welfare — Guidelines for rehabilitation and compensation in the case of Delhi
Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India—Rape on working women.^^The
Delhi Domestic Working Women Forum initiated a public interest litigation under Art. 32 to
bring to light the tragic circumstances of four domestic servants that were the victims of
indecent sexual assault by a total of seven army soldiers. While traveling from Ranchi to
Delhi on the Muri Express, the incident transpired in a train40.

The Supreme Court of India has been able to develop appropriate remedies for a variety of
situations as a result of the extensive discretionary powers granted to it under Article 32 of
the Constitution. Additionally, the Supreme Court's decisions are regarded as the "law of the
land" and serve as binding precedents for all courts and tribunals within the legal system of
India, as stipulated in Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Supreme
Court's decisions in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases have gradually established a
distinctive jurisprudence that ensures the interests of the underprivileged and underdeveloped
segments of society are taken into account. This has the significant consequence of enabling
courts throughout the nation to refer to and widely report on innovative remedies that are
specifically designed for specific fact-situations. This results in the establishment of an active
judicial dialogue within the entire legal system through the rulings rendered in PIL cases.

3.4. JUDICIAL PROGRESS TOWARDS PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION

The Supreme Court possesses the broadest range of powers to safeguard the constitutional
rights of citizens. There is no reason why the Court should not adopt an activist approach,
similar to the courts in the United States, and issue directives to the state that may involve
positive action in order to ensure the enforcement of the fundamental right. This active duty
has been assigned to the judiciary by the Constitution.

It is not anticipated that they will remain in an ivory tower, closing their eyes and
40
Bhardwaj, P. (2023). Supreme Court, in a balancing act, commutes Death Sentence to 20 Years Imprisonment
in Indiscriminate Firing case that killed 6. [online] SCC Times. Available at:
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/11/14/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-to-20-years-
imprisonment-in-indiscriminate-firing-case-legal-news/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

59
disregarding the issues that society faces, as is the case with an Olympian. They are required
to exercise their judicial powers in order to safeguard the fundamental rights and liberties of
the country's citizens. Therefore, in order to accomplish this objective, the judiciary must
exercise and develop its jurisdiction with courage, creativity, and circumstances, as well as
with vision, vigilance, and practical wisdom. That pragmatic wisdom and courageous
creativity are characterized by judicial activism and self-restraint 41.
Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the judiciary's exercise of authority is not
motivated by vanity; rather, it is a fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities. Otherwise,
the judiciary will be rendered inoperable, which will subsequently undermine democracy.
When the executive and legislature are indifferent and neglect to fulfill their constitutional
obligations. The bureaucracy exhibits a complete lack of concern and sensitivity toward its
mandatory obligations. Subsequently, this impacts the fundamental liberties of the populace.
The judiciary should supervise the authorities' excesses and direct them to effectively
implement welfare legislation when the law-enforcing authorities exhibit savagery during the
implementation of the law.

The Supreme Court's role in educating the Central Investigating Authorities to fulfill their
legal responsibilities in the various seams cases and in issuing a variety of judgments,
including the necessity of a Uniform Civil Code, pollution control, the preservation of
historical monuments such as the Taj Mahal, the cleaning and hygiene of large cities, the
direction to remove encroachments, interim compensation for rape victims, the protection of
working women from sexual harassment, the punishment of senior Karnataka IAS Officer
Vasudevan, and the puncturing of the ego of Chief Election Commissioner T. N. Seshan, have
garnered praise. The Supreme Court has determined that the fundamental right to life and
liberty, as enshrined in Art. 21, is complemented by the necessity of an expeditious trial in the
case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. A number of under-trial convicts were detained
in a variety of jails in Bihar for an extended period of time without being tried. The Court
directed the immediate discharge of all prisoners whose names were submitted to the Court.
Given that the Supreme Court deemed expeditious trial to be a fundamental right protected by
Article 21, it was its constitutional obligation to enforce this right for the accused 42.
41
Bose, A. (2021). The Supreme Court of India and delay in execution of death penalty as a ground for
commutation to life imprisonment - iPleaders. [online] iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-
supreme-court-of-india-and-delay-in-the-execution-of-the-death-penalty-as-a-ground-for-commutation-to-life-
imprisonment/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].
42
Tripathi, A. (2023). SC converts death penalty to life term with 20 yrs minimum jail for convict in case of
indiscriminate firing, killing six. [online] Deccan Herald. Available at: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/sc-

60
In the case of Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, it was determined that the
Constitution-makers' concern to prevent any procedural technicalities from impeding the
enforcement of fundamental rights is evident in the provisions that grant the Supreme Court
the authority to enforce them in the broadest possible terms. It is not mandatory to adhere to
an adversarial procedure in proceedings under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental
rights. Clause (2) of Article 32 and any other section of the Constitution do not contain such a
requirement. Public interest litigation for the enforcement of fundamental rights is
substantially addressed in Article 32.
The Supreme Court has now recognized its appropriate function in a welfare state and is
employing this new strategy to not only enforce the fundamental rights of individuals and
assist the impoverished, but also to transform the entire society into a crime-free and
organized environment.
It is commendable that the Supreme Court has played a critical role in compensating for the
inefficiency of the Executive and the lethargic legislative system. The growing judicial
activism of the higher courts is not recognized by those who oppose it, despite the fact that it
has been beneficial to the people.
A number of injustices committed by the States have been rectified through judicial activism.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to
promptly issue orders prohibiting smoking in public places and public transportation,
including railways. During the hearing of a PIL against smoking filed by Murli Deora, the
Maharashtra Congress Leader, the Court also requested that the Commissioners of Police of
Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore, and Ahmadabad submit status reports
regarding the actions taken against cigarette manufacturers who violated the advertising code.
The orders prohibiting smoking in public spaces would encompass healthcare facilities,
health institutions, public offices, public transportation, including railways, and courthouses.
Libraries and auditoriums are facilities that are utilized by educational institutions. Public
health would be improved by the Court's decision, as it recognizes the detrimental effects of
smoking. The State Governments of Delhi, Goa, and Rajasthan have already implemented
legislation prohibiting smoking in public spaces on this issue. An Anti-Smoking Bill has been
introduced by the Centre in the Parliament and has been referred to a Parliamentary Select

converts-death-penalty-to-life-term-with-20-yrs-minimum-jail-for-convict-in-case-of-indiscriminate-firing-
killing-six-2767207 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

61
Committee. The implementation of the Court's directive is a significant issue 43.

3.5. PUBLIC LIFE CORRUPTION

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has demonstrated its effectiveness as a powerful and
potent tool in the court's arsenal, enabling it to uncover numerous corruption and fraud cases
in public life and to penalize the offenders involved in these incidents. Hawala Scam and Uria
Scam. In Bihar, the public interest litigation has revealed the Fodder Scam, St. Kits Scam,
Ayurvedic Medicine Scam, and illicit Allotment of Government Houses and Petrol Pumps.
Certain social organizations and public-spirited individuals file a writ petition in the Supreme
Court and the High Courts as a form of public interest litigation, requesting that the court
investigate and penalize those who are found guilty of violating the country's laws and
misusing their official position in public life. Smt. Sheela Kaul, Mr. Sukhram, and Capt.
Satish Sharma, the three senior ministers of the former Prime Minister's Mr. Narshima Rao
Ministry, have been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay the Government of India Rs.
50,00,000 in compensation as a consequence for abusing their discretionary powers as
ministers. This will undoubtedly discourage ministers and high-ranking public officials from
abusing their authority for personal benefit. Although the Executive is responsible for
addressing such issues, it lacks the willpower to combat corruption due to electoral politics.
The judiciary has assumed responsibility for this task in light of the Executive and Legislative
inaction. This is due to the fact that the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to seek
justice from the courts, and the courts are obligated to provide it.

For the first time since Independence, a Chief Minister has been charged with
misappropriation of public funds and has been apprehended and sent to jail as an under-trial
prisoner. Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, the Chief Minister of Bihar, has been charged by the CBI
for his involvement in the Rs. 950 Crores Fodder Seam case. He has been incarcerated
pending his trial. This has been facilitated by litigation in the public interest 44.

43
CRAIG, P.P. and DESHPANDE, S.L. (1989). Rights, Autonomy and Process: Public Interest Litigation in
India. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 9(3), pp.356–373. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/9.3.356.
44
Vakilsearch | Blog. (2023). The Effectiveness of Public Interest Litigation in Corruption in India. [online]
Available at: https://vakilsearch.com/blog/the-effectiveness-of-public-interest-litigation-in-corruption-in-india/
[Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

62
3.6. GENERAL ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court has determined that any member of the public acting in good faith may
maintain an action for judicial redress in the event that a legal injury or legal wrong is sought
by individuals who are unable to approach the court for the enforcement of their fundamental
rights due to poverty or disability. Consequently, the underprivileged and the downtrodden
have gained access to the court through the efforts of public-spirited individuals or
organizations.

The liberal rule of locus standi has facilitated the representation of marginalized groups in
court by social action organizations." Grulips, including the People's Union for Civil
Liberties, People's Union for Democratic Rights, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Akhil Baratiya
Soshit Karamchari Sangh, Banvasi Seva Asram, and Common Cause a Regd. Society, as well
as individuals such as M.C. Mehta, Sheela Barse, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, and Upendra Baxi, were
permitted to appear in court due to their legal standing to advocate on behalf of the
marginalized. Similarly, the Court was able to address the following groups: trial detainees,
prison inmates, unorganized labour, bonded labour, pavement dwellers, children prosecuted
under the Juvenile Justice Act, children of prostitutes, and women in protective custody. The
Court also examined allegations of the killing of innocent individuals or suspected offenders
through false encounters, the deaths of individuals in police custody as a result of torture, and
the instances of detainees being blinded by the police. The Court's intervention was sought in
the Gajraula nuns rape case, as well as in the control of occupational health hazards and
disease in the asbestos industry, the import, production, distribution, and sale of forty named
insecticides that were banned in the United States. Additionally, the Court was requested to
investigate alleged police atrocities and the Gajraula nuns' working conditions45.

The Supreme Court in Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union v. Punjab designed a scheme to preserve
the beneficial nature of the legislation.
The Punjab Cycle Rickshaw (Regulation of Rickshaws) Act, 1975, stipulated that licenses to
operate rickshaws could only be granted to proprietors who operate them. Licenses were not
issued to individuals who owned the property but rented it out for the purpose of operating it
for another individual. This Act had the potential to result in the unemployment of a number
of rickshaw pullers who did not own their rickshaws, as well as the idleness of many
45
Justiceinitiative.org. (2016). Anti-Corruption Litigation in the Supreme Court of India. [online] Available at:
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/anti-corruption-litigation-supreme-court-india [Accessed 2 Nov.
2024].

63
rickshaws owned by non-driving proprietors. The Act was contested on the basis that it would
impact the right to engage in any trade, business, or occupation as guaranteed by Article 19(l)
(g) of the Constitution. Rather than invalidating the law, Justice Krishna Iyer devised a plan
that would enable rickshaw pullers to obtain financing from the Punjab National Bank and
acquire the rickshaws. The plan stipulated that the loan would be repaid over a specified
period. Therefore, the legislature's objective of eliminating the practice of renting rickshaws
from their proprietors was accomplished without causing the rickshaw pullers any distress.
The case of Common Cause v. Union of India established a comprehensive plan for the
collection, storage, and distribution of blood for transfusion, as well as the prevention of
potential hazards associated with blood transfusion.

The Supreme Court in Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India directed the appropriate
procedures and precautions to be taken when allowing Indian children to be adopted by
foreign adoptive parents. It did so due to the absence of a law that regulated inter-country
adoptions. This lack of regulation would result in incalculable damage to Indian children,
including the trade of children for prostitution and slave labour. In the same vein, the Court
was requested to issue appropriate guidance in order to effectively address the threat of
sexual harassment.
The alleged barbaric gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan was the immediate
cause for the filing of the aforementioned public interest litigation. In the absence of
legislative measures, the Court believed that the same disclosed the hazards to which a
working woman may be exposed, the depravity to which such sexual harassment can
degenerate, and the urgency for safeguards by an alternative mechanism.
The Court held in this instance that the primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and
dignity of women workers is borne by the legislature and the executive. However, when
instances of sexual harassment that result in the violation of fundamental rights under Articles
14, 19, and 21 are brought before it for redress under Article 32, an effective redressal
necessitates the establishment of guidelines for the protection of these rights in order to fill
the legislative vacuum. In order to enforce fundamental rights, these directives were issued in
accordance with the authority granted by Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court also
underscored that the same should be regarded as the law that the court has declared under
Article 141 of the Constitution46.

46
Holladay (2012b). Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations. Indiana Journal
of Global Legal Studies, 19(2), p.555. doi:https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.19.2.555.

64
In the extensive history of public interest litigation, there are numerous examples of
directives being issued and rules or schemes being developed to address the legislative
vacuum, thereby ensuring that laws are functional or that human rights are not violated.
Illustrations such as the aforementioned cases can frequently be misleading and lead one to
believe that the courts are eager to interfere with the powers of other government organs.
However, this is not the case, as the court has declined to enforce the doctrine of separation of
powers in numerous other cases, even when it was clearly within the legislature and
executive's jurisdiction to determine the appropriate course of action and take the necessary
steps to assist the aggrieved. The judiciary has acknowledged and implemented limitations on
the exercise of its jurisdiction through public interest litigation. Consequently, judicial
activism has adopted a cautious and circumspect approach to prevent the misuse of public
interest litigation activism."
The fact situations in which the judiciary refused to violate the principle of separation of
powers and interfere with the operations of the other branches of the government can be
broadly categorized as:

A. Petitions that necessitate the court to instruct the legislature to implement appropriate
legislation.
B. Decisions that involve policy.
C. Those that pertain to the special requirements of the department in question and involve
the issuance of executive instructions.
In the case of Kanhaya Lai Sethia v. Union of India, a public interest litigation (PIL) was
filed to direct the Union of India to introduce an official bill to include the Rajasthani
language in the Vlll th Schedule to the constitution or sponsor a private member bill. The
court held that the inclusion or exclusion of a specific language in the Vlllth Schedule is a
policy matter of the union. The courts are prohibited from intervening in the policy matters of
the state under the power of judicial review, unless the policy is formulated in a manner that
violates the Constitution or any statutory provision or is otherwise motivated by malfeasance.
The court would not be inclined to intervene in the case if there were no such infirmities 47.
In the same vein, it was determined that the State Government's objection regarding a
function to commemorate the Chief Minister's second anniversary of office could not be
taken into account, as the legislature was responsible for investigating the matter. State of

47
Sood, A.M. (2008). Gender Justice through Public Interest Litigation: Case Studies from India. Vanderbilt
journal of transnational law, 41(3), pp.833–906.

65
Himachal Pradesh v. Parent of a Student of a Medical College is another instance in which
the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the legislature's exclusive law-making function.

The High Court issued notices to the college authorities and the Government in this case on
the premise of a letter written by a guardian of a student at a medical college in Shimla. The
High Court issued a variety of directives, one of which was to arrange a committee to report
on the matter. The High Court directed the Chief Secretary to inform the court of the
Government's proposed action on the recommendation to initiate legislation to curtail ragging
upon the submission of the report, which contains a recommendation for legislation. Despite
the chief secretary's categorical assurance to the contrary, this directive was issued.

The Supreme Court held in appeal that the High Court's directive was essentially an indirect
attempt at compelling the State Government to introduce legislation in order to combat the
evil of ragging. This is due to the fact that the Chief Secretary of the State Government had
made a clear and categorical statement that the government would introduce legislation if it
was deemed necessary. The Court further ruled that the executive branch of the government is
responsible for determining whether or not to introduce specific legislation. However, the
executive or any member of the legislature cannot be compelled to initiate legislation,
regardless of whether the Court deems it necessary or desirable. That it isn't a matter that falls
within the scope of the functions and responsibilities that the judiciary is assigned under the
Constitution. If the executive is not fulfilling any obligation that is imposed upon it by the
Constitution or the law, the Court has the authority to compel the executive to fulfil it. This is
the process by which the Court addresses a Public Interest Litigation. It was also noted that
the Court does not issue orders in a PIL with the intention of mocking legal or executive
authority or in a spirit of confrontation, but rather to enforce the Constitution and the law.
This is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law, as it is imperative that the executive
fulfil the obligations imposed by the Constitution and the law in a full and faithful manner.
No one should leave with the impression that the Constitution and the law are intended only
for the benefit of a privileged few and have no significance for the large number of half-
clothed and half-hungry citizens of the country.
It is likely that the Court's allegation of violating the doctrine of separation of powers during
the exercise of its jurisdiction in a public interest litigation is due to the fact that Article 21
now contains nearly 30 types of implicit fundamental rights as a consequence of this
activism. The right to life and liberty as an individual now implicitly encompasses the right to

66
privacy, health, free legal aid, a pollution-free environment, a right to subsistence, shelter, and
gender justice. Although the majority of these rights are protected as legal rights under
various legislations, some of them are too impractical for enforcement, including the right to
subsistence, shelter, a speedy trial, and development. The judiciary is incapable of
guaranteeing their enforcement. Therefore, in the final analysis, the judiciary must also
depend on the other departments of the government to execute its directives. The same
principle is applicable to the execution of the directive principles that the Court has
interpreted as fundamental rights48.

In fact, the legitimacy of PIL itself is a potent check on judicial activism when the Court is
the definitive interpreter of its own powers. The Supreme Court's ability to garner acceptance
and support for its decisions and its role in the government appears to be contingent upon a
sufficiently widespread being convicted that it operates legitimately and fulfilling its assigned
responsibilities in the designated manner. One of the most critical components of the division
of powers doctrine is the preservation of the institution's legitimacy, which ensures that the
independence of the judiciary is not compromised by the other branches.

The court, despite its judicial dynamic, has demonstrated a high level of vigilance in ensuring
that its activism is not exploited by the petitioners for their own personal gain, oblique
motives, or to malign others. As previously stated, the judiciary serves as the balance sheet of
draws in a democratic polity. Consequently, it is obligated to occupy the area designated for
the other branches of the government until they are made aware of their responsibilities or
until they take action to alleviate suffering and uphold justice. The Indian judiciary has been
straddling the narrow line of separation and has, in fact, occasionally infiltrated the domains
of the other organs. Nevertheless, in a system that is perhaps most renowned for its legislative
inaction and executive inaction, the implementation of a strict rule of separation of powers
may prove to be detrimental to the constitution's spirit. In such instances, the judiciary also
serves as a balancer of power and interests.

3.7. PROTECTION AGAINST INHUMAN TREATMENT IN JAIL

48
Sehgal, D.R. (2021). Use and abuse of the Public Interest Litigation - iPleaders. [online] iPleaders. Available
at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/use-abuse-public-interest-litigation/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

67
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, it was determined that the writ of habeas corpus may
be issued to safeguard prisoners from inhuman and barbarous treatment, in addition to
preventing their illegitimate detention. The habeas corpus writ is imbued with a versatile
vitality and operational utility as a bastion of liberty, even within prisons, as a result of the
dynamic role of judicial remedies. The writ power of the court can and should be invoked to
rescue a prisoner whose rights have been violated, whether under the Constitution or other
laws. Krishna Iyer, J. In Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, the Court was informed by a letter that
certain detainees, who were declared sane after being declared insane during the trial, were
not released as a result of the inaction of the State authorities. As a result, they were
compelled to remain in jail for 20 to 30 years. The Court ordered their immediate release 49.

In the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, it was determined that a registered society, non-
profit-making, non-political, and voluntary organization is entitled to file a writ petition under
Art. 32 in order to advocate for the large number of elderly pensioners who are unable to
approach the court individually.

(iii) Child Welfare—In Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, a writ petition was filed on
the basis of a letter that complained of malpractices committed by social organizations and
voluntary agencies that were involved in the process of offering Indian children for adoption
to foreign parents. It was alleged that Indian children of a young age were not only subjected
to the long, perilous journey to distant foreign countries under the guise of adoption, but they
were also denied shelter and relief homes. As a result, they eventually became prostitutes or
beggars due to a lack of proper care. Bhagwati, J. (as he was then known) established
principles and norms that should be strictly adhered to when determining whether a child
should be adopted by foreign parents. His Lordship directed the Government and various
agencies involved in the matter to adhere to these principles in cases where it is their
constitutional obligation to do so under Articles 15 (3) and 39 (c) and (f). The purpose of this
directive was to guarantee the child's welfare.

A public interest litigation was initiated in the Court in Munna v. State of U.P. on the premise
of a news report regarding the sexual exploitation of children by hardened criminals in
Kanpur Jail. The District Judge was directed by the Court.

49
Sehgal, D.R. (2020). Rights of prisoners and major judgments on it. [online] iPleaders. Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/rights-prisoners-major-judgments/.

68
To visit the penitentiary in Kanpur and submit a report. The report verified the sodomy that
was committed against the children. The children were ordered to be released from jail and
relocated to a children's shelter by the Court50.

In the case of M. C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was determined that the employment of
children in match factories that are directly associated with the manufacturing process is
considered hazardous employment under the Employment of Children Act of 1938. It is
possible for them to be employed in the packaging process; however, this should be done in a
location that is remote from the place of manufacture to prevent the risk of accidents. Every
infant is required to be insured for a sum of Rs. 5000/-, with the employer responsible for the
payment of the premium as a condition of employment.

The Court in Sheela Barse v. Union of India ordered the Central Government to provide the
petitioner, a social worker, with Rs. 10,000 in payment for expenses and to provide all
necessary support. The petitioner offered to personally visit various regions of the country to
verify the accuracy of the information submitted by the authorities regarding children under
the age of 18 who were detained in jails in various states. The Court mandated that the
Children's Acts, which had been enacted by a variety of states, be enforced with vigor. It is
advisable for Parliament to enact a central legislation regarding the matter.

In the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court has established
comprehensive guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment of working women in the
workplace until legislation is enacted. The Court ruled that it is the responsibility of the
employer or other responsible individual in the workplace and other institutions, whether
public or private, to prevent sexual harassment of working women.

J. S. Verma, C.J., delivered the judgment of the Court on behalf of Sujata V. Manohar and B.
N. Kripal, JJ., in response to a writ-petition filed by Vishaka, a non-governmental
organization that is dedicated to "gender equality." The petition was filed through a public
interest litigation (PIL) and sought to enforce the fundamental rights of working women
under Articles 14.19 and 21 of the Constitution. The alleged barbaric gang rape of a social
worker in Rajasthan was the immediate basis for the filing of this writ petition. The Court
50
United Nations (1988). Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. [online] OHCHR. Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/body-principles-protection-all-persons-under-
any-form-detention.

69
instructed the employers to establish a procedure that would enable working women to voice
their complaints. The Court interpreted the guarantee of gender equality in Articles 14, 19,
and 21 of the Constitution by relying on international conventions and regulations to which
India is a party, stating that in the absence of any domestic law on the matter, they can be
relied upon.

The Court determined that it possesses the authority to establish guidelines for the effective
enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women at their workplaces under Article
32. It also declared that this would be regarded as the law proclaimed by the Supreme Court
under Article 141 of the Constitution51.

Blood Banks' Proper Storage and Supply of Blood- In the landmark case of Common Cause
v. Union of India, the petitioner, through a public interest litigation, emphasized the severe
deficiencies and shortcomings in the collection, storage, and supply of blood through the
various blood centres operating in the country. The petitioner requested that an appropriate
writ, order, or direction be issued, directing the Centre, State Government, and Union
Territories to take positive steps in a time-bound program to address the malpractices,
malfunctioning, and inadequacies of blood banks throughout the country. The Supreme Court
issued the subsequent directives in accordance with the reports of the numerous Committees
and the committee established by the Court:

(1) To establish a National Council of Blood Transfusion, State Councils as a Society

registered under the Societies Registration Act.

(2) A Secretariat shall be established in Delhi by the National Council. Their program and
activities will include the following: the licensing of blood banks, the elimination of the
professional donor system within two years, the strengthening of the machinery for the
enforcement of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and Rules, the periodic
inspection of blood banks to ensure that they are treated as drugs under the Act, the creation
of separate legislation to regulate the collection, processing, storage, distribution, and
transportation of blood, and the submission of a report by the Director of Health Services.

51
Silwal, R. (2011). Right Against Torture and Case of Maina Sunuwar: An Analysis in the Light of the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). SSRN
Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2158744.

70
The Government of India submitted a petition to the Court on 15.7.1996 pursuant to the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Rules, 1945, Part X-B & Part XIII-B52.

3.8. AUTHORITY TO GRANT COMPENSATION

The Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India determined that the scope of Article 32
is sufficiently broad to encompass the authority to provide compensation for the violation of
fundamental rights. The court's authority under Article 32 is not solely preventive, as it has
the capacity to grant compensation and prevent the infringement of fundamental rights. It is
also remedial in nature. The Supreme Court stated, "The power of the court to grant such
remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases." The
Court subsequently clarified that compensation would be granted only in "appropriate cases,"
not in every instance. The "appropriate cases" are those in which "the infringement of
fundamental right is gross and patent," which is incontrovertible and ex facie glaring. The
infringement must either be on a large scale, affecting the fundamental right of a large
number of persons, or it must appear unjust or unduly harsh or oppressive due to the person's
poverty, disability, or socially or economically disadvantaged position, necessitating that the
person affected by the infringement initiate and pursue action in civil courts.

Nevertheless, the Court emphasized that a petition under Art. 32 should not be used as a
substitute for the enforcement of the right through the standard civil court procedure. The
court cited the Rudal Shah and Sebastian cases as examples of instances in which
compensation was granted based on the same principle. In such instances, the court ruled that
it would be profoundly unjust to require the victim to attend civil court in order to seek
compensation. The current judgment of the court is to be welcomed in the current
circumstances of the country, where it takes many years for the victim to receive relief in a
civil court.

In the case of Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, the court granted the petitioner Rs. 30,000 in
compensation for the 14-year imprisonment he endured as a result of the state authorities'
negligent actions. In a similar vein, the petitioner in Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K. was

52
van der Valk, S. and Rogan, M. (2020). Experiencing human rights protections in prisons: The case of prison
monitoring in Ireland. European Journal of Criminology, 18(1), p.147737082096002.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370820960024.

71
awarded Rs. 50,000 in compensation for the violation of his constitutional rights.

A labourer was taken to the police station for performing work in the case of Peoples Union
for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner Delhi Police Headquarters. When he
demanded his wages, he was severely assaulted, resulting in his death. The State was found to
be responsible for providing the family of the deceased with a sum of Rs. 75,000 in
compensation. The Court in Saheli v. Commr of Police, which followed this decision,
directed the government to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the mother of the victim who
perished as a result of a police officer's beating. Police officers' misconduct resulted in the
death of a nine-year-old child. The women's and civil rights organizations, collectively
known as Saheli, submitted the writ petition on behalf of the victim's mother53.

The petitioner's spouse, a major in the Indian Army, passed away in mysterious circumstances
while serving in Chiranjit Kaur v. Union of India. The cause of his death was not adequately
investigated. The authorities responsible for his case acted with cynical indifference and
culpable negligence. The widow and her minor children were determined to be entitled to a
"compensation" of Rs. six lakhs, as well as the special family pension and the children's
allowance, in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Court granted compensation to
the petitioner, the widow of a convict who was murdered by a co-accused in jail while
serving his sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in the case of Kewal Pati v.
State of Uttar Pradesh. It was determined that the execution in jail violated the law by
depriving him of his life.

3.9. THE SITUATION OF PIL IN ODISHA

The Legal Framework of Public Interest Litigation in India: A Concentration on Odisha

Opening Statement
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India is a judicial innovation that is designed to advance
the cause of the impoverished and marginalized segments of society. The legal framework of
PIL is based on the Indian Constitution, a variety of statutes, and interpretations by the courts.
This framework allows the judiciary to enforce rights that are frequently neglected or violated
and to serve as a guardian of the public interest.

53
Priest, G.L. and Klein, B. (1984b). The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. The Journal of Legal Studies,
13(1), pp.1–55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/467732.

72
Constitutional Provisions Article 32: This article grants individuals the right to
constitutional remedies, which enables them to petition the Supreme Court for the
enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is the foundation of public interest litigation (PIL),
allowing the court to serve writs in cases of the public's benefit54.

Article 226: This article provides the High Courts with the authority to serve writs for the
protection of fundamental rights along with additional legal rights, thus enabling PIL at the
state level, similar to Article 32.

Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Despite the fact that they are not enforceable,
these principles serve as a reference for the state in the development of policies that are
intended to advance economic and social welfare. These policies frequently become the
subject of public interest litigation (PILs).

Guidelines and Judicial Interpretations

Locus Standi Relaxation: Historically, the court was only accessible to those who were
aggrieved. Nevertheless, the judiciary, through significant judgments such as S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India (1981), relaxed this requirement, enabling public-spirited individuals and
organizations to submit PILs on behalf of those who are unable to approach the court for
themselves.

Fundamental Rights Expansion: The court system has interpreted basic freedoms in a broad
sense. For example, the right to life under Article 21 has been expanded to encompass the
right to an a healthy one, education, and livelihood, thereby giving rise to a plethora of public
interest litigations.

The judicial process is now more accessible to the disadvantaged due to the informal
approach that the courts have taken in admitting correspondence and postcards as PIL
petitions, known as Epistolary Jurisdiction55.
54
Dutta, J.P. (2023). ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’: Orissa High Court Dismisses PIL Against RBI Circular
Allowing Exchange... [online] Livelaw.in. Available at:
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-dismisses-pil-challenging-rbi-
discontinuance-of-2000-notes-230231 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].
55
Service, E.N. (2023). Orissa HC fines petitioner for filing PIL without following rules. [online] The New
Indian Express. Available at: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2023/Oct/12/orissa-hc-fines-

73
Public Duty and Accountability: Public Interest Law (PIL) has been implemented to
enforce public obligations and hold government officials responsible, thereby guaranteeing
that governance is consistent with constitutional principles and the public welfare.

Legal Requirements
Environmental Protection Acts: PILs concerning environmental issues frequently are
predicated on a variety of environmental laws, including the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Human Rights Legislation: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, serves as a statutory
foundation for PILs that address human rights violations.

Consumer Protection Laws: The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 has also been invoked in
PILs with the objective of safeguarding consumer rights and ensuring equitable practices.

Administrative Mechanisms Supreme Court and High Courts: These courts are
instrumental in the adjudication of PILs, as they have designated chambers and procedures to
expedite the process.

Legal Services Authorities: Organizations such as the National Legal Services Authority
(NALSA) and State Legal Services Authorities offer legal help and assistance, facilitating the
filing of PILs by marginalized groups.

In Odisha, the High Court of Orissa has been proactive in accepting PILs on a variety of
topics, such as protecting the environment, tribal freedoms, and governance.

Notable PILs in Odisha: PILs in Odisha have dealt with significant issues, including the
preservation of forests and wildlife, the displacement of tribal communities due to industrial
projects, and illegal mining.

Accessibility and Challenges: Despite the proactive approach, there are still obstacles in
terms of awareness and accessibility among marginalized communities. Efforts must be made
petitioner-for-filing-pil-without-following-rules-2623137.html [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

74
to guarantee that PILs are not abused and that they are authentically serving the public
interest.

In conclusion,
A comprehensive mechanism for addressing public interest issues is provided by the legal
framework of PIL in India, which is supported by Constitutional clauses, judicial
interpretations, and statutory laws. This framework has been crucial in the resolution of
environmental and socio-economic issues in Odisha. Nevertheless, it is imperative to
maintain the integrity, effectiveness, and accessibility of PILs to guarantee their continued
use as a genuine tool for public welfare and social justice56.

PIL CASES IN ODISHA

Odisha has seen the filing of numerous Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases that have
addressed a variety of socio-economic, environmental, and governance issues. The following
are a few notable PILs that have had a significant impact in Odisha57:

1. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013): Mining in the
Niyamgiri Hills
Issue: This PIL was submitted in response to the proposed extraction of aluminum in the
Niyamgiri Hills, which is holy for the Dongria Kondh tribe and a site of significant
biodiversity. Vedanta Resources intended to extract bauxite from the region.
Result: The indigenous community's rights to the land were upheld by the Supreme Court.
The court acknowledged the cultural and religious importance of the land to the tribe and
determined that the extraction could not proceed without the approval of the gram sabhas
(village assemblies). This case served as a significant milestone in the preservation of
environmental conservation and tribal rights.
2. POSCO Project Case: State of Odisha v. Subash Mohapatra (2013):

56
lalmohan.patnaik (2020). HC dismisses PIL alleging govt’s coastal Odisha bias. [online] The Times of India.
Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/cuttack/hc-dismisses-pil-alleging-govts-coastal-odisha-
bias/articleshow/78844900.cms [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].
57
Dutta, J.P. (2022). PIL Filed In Orissa High Court Against Felling Of Hundreds Of Trees For Construction Of
MLA Quarters In... [online] Livelaw.in. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/orissa-high-court-pil-
felling-of-trees-mla-quarters-construction-bhubaneswar-200688 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2024].

75
Problem: The environmental certification granted to POSCO's steel project in Jagatsinghpur,
Odisha was the subject of this PIL. The initiative had substantial environmental
repercussions, such as deforestation and land acquisition, and caused the expulsion of
thousands of individuals, including farmers and fishermen.
Result: POSCO's environmental approval was suspended by the National Green Tribunal
(NGT) due to insufficient environmental impact assessments. The case underscored concerns
regarding environmental degradation, land acquisition, and displacement. In 2017, POSCO
ultimately withdrew from the project as a result of litigation and protests.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the Mahanadi River Dispute (2016):
Issue: The Mahanadi Banchao Andolan, a civil society organization, filed this PIL in order to
request judicial intervention in the current conflict between Odisha and Chhattisgarh
regarding the distribution of water from the Mahanadi River. The PIL contended that the
water flow into Odisha was being impacted by the construction of numerous dams and
barrages on the Mahanadi by Chhattisgarh, especially during the non-monsoon season.
Result: The public's awareness of the national water dispute was heightened as a result of the
PIL. In order to resolve the conflict, the Supreme Court ordered both states to establish a
Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal. This case has significant implications for interstate
cooperation and water-sharing policies in India.
4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the Simlipal Forest Fires (2021):
Issue: In early 2021, a catastrophic forest fire erupted in Odisha's Simlipal National Park, an
ecological stronghold and one of India's largest tiger reserves. A public interest litigation
(PIL) was submitted to the Orissa High Court in order to request immediate action from the
state administration and forestry authorities in order to mitigate the fire and safeguard
wildlife.
Outcome: The High Court issued an order to control the forest fire and monitor its spread,
recognizing the gravity of the situation. The state government was ordered by the court to
submit an account on the steps it had taken and to enhance preventive measures to prevent
future incidents. The PIL underscored the significance of conservation initiatives in the forest
regions of Odisha.
5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Illegal Sand Mining in Odisha (2019):
Issue: The purpose of this PIL was to provide a response to the widespread illicit sand mining
activities that are occurring in numerous districts of Odisha. The PIL contended that illegal
mining was occurring without environmental clearances, resulting in severe environmental
degradation, such as the erosion of riverbanks and the loss of agricultural land.
76
Outcome: The Orissa High Court acknowledged the issue and instructed the state government
to enforce rigorous measures to prevent illegal sand mining. This PIL drew attention to the
ecological and legislative difficulties associated with sand mining in the state, and the court
additionally directed municipalities to enforce environmental laws and conduct periodic
checks to prevent illegal mining.
6. Kandhamal Human Rights Violation Case (2008):

Issue: A public interest litigation (PIL) was initiated in the wake of the 2008 Kandhamal
riots, which resulted in extensive violence against the Christian community in Odisha. The
petitioners demanded an open investigation into the circumstances that precipitated the
violence, appropriate rehabilitation, and justice for the victims.
Result: The Orissa High Court and Supreme Court stepped in, directing the provision of
rehabilitation and compensation to those who were the victims or survivors of the violence.
The court also advocated for the implementation of more robust measures to safeguard the
most vulnerable populations in the state and prevent communal violence.
7. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Chilika Lake Encroachment (2014):

Issue: A PIL was filed to address the illegal prawn cultivation and encroachments in Chilika
Lake, Asia's largest brackish water lagoon. The lake is home to a diverse array of wildlife,
including migratory birds, and supports thousands of fishermen. The ecological equilibrium
and incomes of local communities were being impacted by the illegal prawn farming.
Result: The Orissa High Court directed the state's government to implement stringent
measures against prawn cultivation and illegal encroachments in the lake. The court ordered
the removal of illegal buildings and underscored the necessity of safeguarding the ecological
equilibrium and biodiversity of Chilika Lake.

These cases are indicative of the diverse array of issues that are tackled through PILs in
Odisha, including human rights, governance, and environmental protection. PIL has been
instrumental in ensuring that both private and governmental entities are held accountable,
which has resulted in substantial social and environmental reforms in the state. Nevertheless,
the timely resolution of PILs and the execution of judicial directives are also critical to their
success and impact.

The Indian judiciary's decentralized record-keeping practice can make it difficult to access
exhaustive, current data on Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases filed especially in Odisha.

77
Nevertheless, the Odisha High Court, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), and findings
from legal scholarship organizations provide some insight into PIL trends.

Based on the information that is currently available, the following are several critical aspects
concerning PIL cases in Odisha:

General Trends in Public Interest Litigation Cases in Odisha

Increasing Number of PILs: The Odisha High Court has experienced a substantial increase in
the number of public interest litigation (PIL) filings over the years. PILs have become a
popular instrument for seeking resolution of public complaints concerning protecting the
environment, governance problems, human rights, and more, which is consistent with
national trends. The rise in is in line with this trend58.

Nature of PILs: In Odisha, PIL cases typically concentrate on:

Environmental concerns, including the preservation of Chilika Lake, illicit mining,

deforestation, and forestry fires in Simlipal.
Human rights, particularly those that pertain to marginalized communities such as tribal
communities and populations that have been displaced.
Governance and corruption-related concerns, including irregularities in public initiatives and
disputes over land acquisition.
Public health and education, with a particular emphasis on the provision of services to
vulnerable populations.
High-Profile PILs: Odisha has experienced numerous high-profile PILs that have had a
significant impact on the environment, economy, and society. These cases include the
Niyamgiri mining case, the POSCO project disagreement, and illicit sand mining 59.

Data Insights That Are Currently Available

Although public databases may not provide exact numbers for PIL filings in Odisha, the
following general insights can be obtained:

58
Cobb, R.W. and Elder, C.D. (1971). The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern
Democratic Theory. The Journal of Politics, [online] 33(4), pp.892–915. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2128415.
59
Hoque, R. (2006). Taking justice seriously: judicial public interest and constitutional activism in Bangladesh.
Contemporary South Asia, 15(4), pp.399–422. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09584930701330006.

78
The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is a government platform that offers real-time
information on the pendency and disposition of cases at district and high courts throughout
India. In categories such as safeguarding the environment, disputes over land, and human
rights, the Odisha High Court consistently registers hundreds of cases, including public
interest litigation (PILs).

PIL Bench of the Orissa High Court:

The High Court of Odisha has a dedicated bench that handles PIL cases. The significance
and volume of PILs being lodged are reflected in the establishment of a PIL bench. Typically,
the court's official portals or RTI (Right to Information) forms can be used to request specific
PIL data related to this bench.

Environmental PILs:

The state of Odisha has been an epicentre for PILs concerning biodiversity protection, as
evidenced by the state's abundant woodlands, fauna, and tribal populations, according to
ecological NGOs and legal advocates. According to data from the National Green Tribunal
(NGT), Odisha is frequently found among the states with a high volume of environmental
litigation cases.

Increase in the Post-2000s:

Odisha experienced a spike in PILs across a variety of sectors in the years following 2000.
According to numerous reports from the State Legal Services Authority of Odisha, the
increase in PILs is a result of socio-economic challenges, concerns about the environment
resulting from accelerated industrialization, and displacement issues.

Examples of Data Points from Recent Years 2018-2021:

In the mineral-rich districts of Odisha, such as Keonjhar and Sundargarh, numerous public
interest litigations (PILs) were initiated to combat illegal mining activities. These instances
have involved private companies and government authorities that have failed to comply with
environmental laws.
Numerous public interest litigations (PILs) were submitted during the COVID-19 pandemic
(2020-2021) to address the inadequate medical facilities and measures in Odisha. These PILs

79
primarily addressed public health concerns and the state's response to the crisis.
The year 2021:
The court was requested to intervene in forest conservation efforts on the basis of more than
50 PILs lodged regarding forest fires in Simlipal National Park.
A PIL was also submitted to contest the absence of effective measures to address the
recurring environmental issue of encroachment on Chilika Lake in Odisha.
Decentralized Record-Keeping:

The precise quantity of PILs filed in Odisha is challenging to monitor due to the absence of a
single central repository for PILs. Data may be accessible in court records; however, it
frequently necessitates manual extraction or particular inquiries to court registries.
Pendency of Cases:

Odisha's courts, like those of numerous other states, are confronted with an accumulation of
cases, which includes public interest litigation (PILs). The efficacy of PILs is frequently
compromised by the frequent occurrence of adjudication delays.

In conclusion,
It is evident that PILs are essential in addressing public issues in the state, notably in human
rights and environmental protection cases, despite the fact that it is challenging to obtain
exact numbers on the number of PILs filed in Odisha without access to specific court records.
For accurate data, it may be necessary to conduct a thorough inquiry to the Orissa High Court
or to examine the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and RTI applications.

80
 CHAPTER- 4
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - USES AND ABUSES

4.1 Uses of PIL

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been an essential tool for safeguarding human rights,
promoting justice, and ensuring accountability within various sectors of society. Below, we
explore the uses of PIL, demonstrating how it has helped enforce legal obligations, protect
rights, and support judicial objectives. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a
powerful instrument in the legal framework, significantly contributing to the protection of
human rights, the promotion of justice, and the enforcement of accountability across various
sectors of society. It has served as a vital tool for the public, allowing individuals or
organizations to approach the judiciary for redressal when public interest is at stake. In
countries like India, where PIL has gained prominence, it has become a key avenue for
addressing issues ranging from environmental protection and human rights violations to
social justice and governance. This form of litigation enables not just victims but also
concerned citizens and public interest groups to seek judicial intervention in matters that
affect the collective well-being of society.

One of the most significant uses of PIL is its ability to enforce legal obligations and ensure
that government bodies and public authorities adhere to their duties. In situations where there
is non-compliance with constitutional mandates or statutory provisions, PIL allows the
judiciary to step in and direct corrective action. For instance, PIL has been instrumental in
ensuring the proper implementation of environmental laws, such as those protecting air and
water quality. It has led to the establishment of stricter environmental regulations and
compelled governments and industries to address issues like pollution, deforestation, and
wildlife conservation. When the government fails to act on issues of public importance, PIL
can bring attention to these failures and compel authorities to take immediate action.

Another vital use of PIL is its role in protecting fundamental rights and liberties. It allows
individuals or organizations to bring cases before the court even when they are not directly
affected by the violation. For example, PIL has been used effectively to protect the rights of
marginalized communities, such as women, children, and minorities, whose voices may not
always be heard through conventional legal avenues. Courts have, through PIL, been able to
ensure that fundamental rights, including the right to life, equality, and freedom from
discrimination, are upheld. In many instances, PIL petitions have led to landmark judgments
81
that have significantly expanded the scope of human rights protections in a country,
particularly in areas related to gender equality, the right to education, and the rights of
prisoners.

Furthermore, PIL has played a crucial role in supporting judicial objectives by promoting
transparency, good governance, and accountability within both the government and private
sectors. It has served as a mechanism to address corruption, maladministration, and abuse of
power. Through PIL, courts have investigated issues like corruption in public office,
irregularities in public procurement, and the misuse of power by government officials. By
initiating PIL cases, civil society organizations and public-spirited individuals have
contributed to the watchdog function of the judiciary, ensuring that the executive and
legislative branches are held accountable for their actions. In this sense, PIL has empowered
ordinary citizens to participate in the judicial process and to challenge authorities when
necessary.

In addition, PIL has been used to address a wide array of social issues, such as access to basic
healthcare, education, housing, and sanitation. When public services are inadequate or when
the state fails to fulfill its constitutional obligations, PIL has been a tool for seeking remedies.
Through PIL, the judiciary has issued orders for the provision of essential services to
underserved communities, ensuring that they are not denied their basic rights. For instance,
PIL has played a role in improving access to clean drinking water, enhancing healthcare
facilities in rural areas, and ensuring that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not
deprived of education.

In conclusion, the uses of PIL are vast and varied, ranging from ensuring compliance with
legal obligations and protecting rights to promoting justice and accountability. Through its
intervention, PIL has significantly contributed to the development of a more just and
equitable society, reinforcing the idea that the law should serve the collective interests of the
people, particularly those who are vulnerable or disadvantaged. As a tool for social change,
PIL has empowered citizens and civil society organizations to actively participate in legal
processes, thereby fostering a more inclusive and transparent legal system.60

4.1.1 Enforcing Legal Obligation

One of the most significant contributions of PIL is its role in enforcing legal obligations. PIL
allows citizens or organizations to approach the courts to ensure that governmental bodies,
60
Sathe, S. P., Judicial Activism in India, OUP,

82
institutions, and public authorities fulfill their legal duties, particularly those concerning
social justice and welfare. PIL has been instrumental in compelling public authorities to carry
out statutory obligations where there has been negligence or failure to act.

For example, in cases involving the protection of the environment, PIL has been used to
ensure compliance with environmental laws and to mandate remedial actions when
regulations have been violated. Similarly, PIL is employed to ensure that public institutions
provide adequate services such as healthcare, education, and sanitation. Enforcing Legal
Obligations through Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

One of the most vital contributions of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is its ability to enforce
legal obligations, particularly those related to social justice, human rights, and public welfare.
PIL offers citizens, non-governmental organizations, and public-spirited individuals the
opportunity to approach the judiciary when they believe that public authorities or government
bodies have failed to fulfill their legal duties or obligations. By enabling individuals to seek
judicial intervention in matters of public importance, PIL has become an essential tool for
ensuring that governmental bodies and public institutions uphold their responsibilities toward
society. The significance of PIL in enforcing legal obligations extends across a wide range of
sectors, from environmental protection to public health, education, and other aspects of
welfare.

A primary area where PIL has been pivotal in enforcing legal obligations is environmental
law. In many cases, public authorities or private entities have failed to comply with laws
designed to protect the environment, leading to widespread harm such as pollution,
deforestation, and the degradation of natural resources. Through PIL, the judiciary has been
able to hold such authorities accountable by compelling them to implement existing
environmental regulations and take corrective measures. For instance, PIL petitions have
been filed to address air and water pollution, deforestation, and illegal mining activities.
Courts have issued orders for industries to comply with environmental norms, imposed fines
for violations, and directed governmental bodies to take specific actions to mitigate the
damage caused by environmental degradation. In this way, PIL ensures that environmental
laws are not merely theoretical but are enforced in practice, making sure that governments
and industries fulfill their legal obligations to protect natural resources for the benefit of
society.

83
Similarly, PIL plays an essential role in ensuring that public institutions meet their obligations
regarding basic services such as healthcare, education, sanitation, and housing. In cases
where public institutions fail to provide essential services, PIL allows concerned citizens or
organizations to bring the issue before the judiciary, compelling government agencies to act.
One of the most notable examples of this has been PIL’s role in the field of healthcare. In
many instances, PIL has been used to address the inadequacies in public health infrastructure,
such as the lack of access to medical facilities in rural areas, the shortage of essential
medicines, or the failure to maintain sanitation standards in hospitals. PIL petitions have led
to the establishment of healthcare guidelines, the allocation of additional resources for public
hospitals, and the creation of policies to ensure that healthcare services reach vulnerable
populations.

Similarly, PIL has been used to enforce legal obligations in the education sector. In countries
where education is a fundamental right, PIL has ensured that children from disadvantaged
communities receive access to quality education. When state governments fail to fulfill their
constitutional mandate of providing free and compulsory education, PIL petitions have been
filed to prompt judicial intervention. Courts have directed governments to build more
schools, recruit additional teachers, and ensure the allocation of resources for the
implementation of education programs. Additionally, PIL has been instrumental in addressing
issues related to the quality of education, such as teacher absenteeism, inadequate
infrastructure, and discriminatory practices that hinder access to education for marginalized
groups.61

Public sanitation is another area where PIL has been crucial in enforcing legal obligations. In
many developing nations, the failure of local and regional governments to provide basic
sanitation services can lead to widespread health issues, including the spread of diseases like
cholera and dysentery. PIL has been used to compel authorities to provide clean drinking
water, construct proper waste disposal systems, and maintain hygiene standards in public
areas. Courts have issued orders requiring governments to take immediate action to improve
sanitation facilities, particularly in slums and rural areas, to protect the health and dignity of
the population.

In all these examples, PIL acts as a tool to hold public authorities accountable for their failure
to fulfill their legal obligations. The power of PIL lies not only in bringing attention to issues
that affect large segments of society but also in compelling authorities to take immediate
61
Ranjan, P. & Kumar, M.

84
action and fulfill their constitutional and statutory duties. By empowering citizens to
approach the judiciary, PIL ensures that governments cannot evade their responsibility to
safeguard public welfare and adhere to legal mandates, ultimately strengthening the rule of
law and promoting social justice. Thus, PIL plays an indispensable role in enforcing legal
obligations, particularly in areas where the state’s failure to act would otherwise result in
harm to public interests.

4.1.2 Protecting the Rights of Minorities

PIL has emerged as an effective tool for the protection of marginalized groups, including
minorities, the poor, and vulnerable communities. By enabling public-spirited citizens to file
cases on behalf of those who are unable to do so themselves, PIL helps to uphold the
fundamental rights of these individuals. It ensures that the state, often the primary violator of
such rights, is held accountable.

Cases like the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which led to the establishment of
guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace, exemplify how PIL can protect the rights
of vulnerable groups in society. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has played a critical role in
safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups, including minorities, the poor, and vulnerable
communities. It has become an essential mechanism through which the judicial system can
intervene in cases where individuals or groups face discrimination, neglect, or injustice, and
where traditional avenues of legal recourse may be unavailable or ineffective. PIL empowers
public-spirited individuals, organizations, and advocacy groups to file cases on behalf of
those whose voices might otherwise go unheard, particularly those who are unable to
approach the courts themselves due to socio-economic barriers, lack of education, or fear of
retribution. As a result, PIL has been instrumental in not only upholding the fundamental
rights of marginalized populations but also holding the state and other authorities accountable
for violations of these rights.62

One of the most significant contributions of PIL in protecting the rights of minorities is its
ability to address systemic discrimination and social exclusion. In many societies, minorities
—whether based on caste, religion, gender, or other characteristics—face institutionalized
discrimination that limits their access to basic rights such as education, healthcare,
employment, and even political representation. PIL has been used to challenge laws, policies,
and practices that perpetuate inequality and marginalization, ensuring that the judiciary acts

62
Public Interest Litigation in India: The Scope and Abuse," Indian Law Review, 2010.

85
as a check on such discrimination. Through PIL petitions, courts have been able to direct the
state to take corrective actions, implement policies for affirmative action, and promote the
inclusion of historically marginalized groups.

An illustrative example of PIL’s role in protecting the rights of vulnerable communities can
be seen in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which addressed the issue of
sexual harassment in the workplace. This case began as a PIL filed by a group of women’s
rights organizations, following the tragic gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan. In the
absence of specific laws governing sexual harassment at the time, the Supreme Court of India
intervened through PIL, establishing landmark guidelines to prevent workplace harassment.
The Vishaka case not only provided legal recognition to the issue of sexual harassment but
also created a legal framework for employers to follow, thus safeguarding the rights of
women in the workplace. The decision was a significant step toward addressing gender-based
violence and ensuring the protection of women’s rights in public and private spaces.

Beyond gender, PIL has also been crucial in advocating for the rights of various other
minority groups, including religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous communities, and
economically disadvantaged individuals. One of the keyways PIL helps protect the rights of
these groups is by ensuring that the state fulfills its constitutional obligation to guarantee
equality before the law and protect citizens from discrimination. For example, PIL petitions
have been filed to challenge discriminatory laws that exclude certain religious or ethnic
groups from receiving equal protection under the law. In some cases, PIL has been used to
ensure that laws intended to benefit marginalized groups, such as affirmative action or
reservations in education and employment, are properly implemented.

PIL has also been an effective tool in addressing issues related to the rights of children,
people with disabilities, and other vulnerable segments of society. In cases where the state
fails to ensure access to education, healthcare, or protection from exploitation, PIL allows
individuals or organizations to seek judicial intervention on behalf of those affected. For
instance, PIL has been used to address child labor, child marriage, and the lack of access to
education for children in impoverished regions. Through these cases, courts have mandated
changes in government policy, directed the establishment of welfare programs, and ensured
the enforcement of protective laws, thereby contributing to the upliftment of marginalized
communities.

86
Furthermore, PIL serves as a vehicle for ensuring that the government does not become a
violator of the very rights it is supposed to protect. In many cases, the state itself is the
primary perpetrator of human rights violations, particularly against minorities or vulnerable
groups. Whether it is through wrongful detention, police brutality, discriminatory legislation,
or failure to uphold social justice laws, PIL holds the government accountable for its actions.
The judiciary, through PIL, can intervene and direct the state to take corrective action,
ensuring that the rights of these vulnerable populations are not ignored or violated.

In conclusion, PIL has proven to be a powerful mechanism for protecting the rights of
minorities and marginalized groups, particularly in societies where legal protections may be
inadequate or poorly enforced. By enabling public-spirited citizens and organizations to
approach the judiciary on behalf of those who lack the resources or ability to fight for their
rights, PIL has contributed to ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society are not
denied justice. Whether it is through challenging discriminatory laws, advocating for better
policies, or compelling the state to fulfill its legal obligations, PIL plays a vital role in
promoting social justice and advancing the rights of minority and disadvantaged
communities. It not only acts as a safeguard against the erosion of fundamental rights but also
helps to build a more inclusive and equitable society for all.63

4.1.3 Strengthening the Judiciary

PIL also plays a vital role in enhancing the judiciary's capacity to serve the public interest.
Courts are often able to address cases of significant public concern, which might otherwise
go unaddressed due to lack of legal recourse or public awareness. PIL has led to judicial
interventions in a wide array of issues such as human rights violations, environmental
protection, and the enforcement of public policy.

By encouraging judicial activism, PIL ensures that the judiciary acts as a guardian of
constitutional values, going beyond the traditional role of interpreting law to actively
promoting justice. Through PIL, courts can respond to pressing issues that may not fit the
rigid contours of conventional legal proceedings. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plays an
essential role in strengthening the judiciary by enhancing its capacity to serve the public good
and address issues of significant societal concern that might otherwise go unnoticed or
unresolved. In many cases, issues affecting the larger public—such as human rights
violations, environmental degradation, or social inequality—do not fit neatly within the

63
Verma, S. K., Public Interest Litigation in India:

87
traditional framework of legal disputes. In such situations, PIL provides a unique avenue for
citizens or organizations to bring these concerns before the courts, even if they are not
directly involved in the issue at hand. This ability to file cases on behalf of the broader public
interest has made PIL a powerful tool for ensuring that critical matters, which might
otherwise lack the necessary legal recourse or public awareness, are addressed in the
judiciary.

Through PIL, courts are empowered to take up cases that are of public concern and societal
relevance, which may not have a clear legal standing but still require urgent judicial attention.
For example, environmental issues such as pollution, deforestation, and conservation of
natural resources, as well as issues related to human rights, public health, and access to
education, have all been brought before the courts via PIL petitions. These cases often
highlight systemic problems that affect large segments of society, particularly marginalized
communities or vulnerable populations. By intervening in these cases, the judiciary plays an
active role in ensuring that public policies and governmental actions are in alignment with the
principles of justice, equality, and human rights.

One of the key features of PIL is its encouragement of judicial activism. Judicial activism
refers to the idea that courts, in some cases, should go beyond merely interpreting the law and
instead play an active role in promoting justice and safeguarding public interest. While the
traditional role of the judiciary has been to interpret and apply the law as it is written, PIL
allows courts to exercise a more dynamic and proactive approach. It empowers the judiciary
to fill gaps in the legal system and respond to evolving social issues that may not have been
foreseen when the laws were initially drafted. In doing so, PIL enables courts to act as
guardians of constitutional values, ensuring that the legal system adapts to meet the changing
needs of society.

Through PIL, the judiciary has been able to address pressing issues that may not fit the rigid
contours of conventional legal proceedings. For example, cases involving issues such as
poverty alleviation, child labor, public health emergencies, and the rights of marginalized
communities often do not present themselves as standard legal claims that can be pursued
through traditional litigation. PIL allows courts to step in and issue directions or judgments
that can shape public policy and demand accountability from governmental bodies. By
addressing these concerns through PIL, the judiciary becomes more than just a passive
adjudicator of legal disputes—it becomes an active participant in shaping a just society.

88
The impact of PIL on judicial strengthening can be seen in its capacity to enforce the rule of
law even in cases where the state or other institutions may have failed to uphold their
responsibilities. Whether it's enforcing environmental regulations, ensuring equal access to
education, or protecting the rights of minority groups, PIL enables the judiciary to take swift
and decisive action in areas where delays or inaction could lead to irreparable harm. In this
way, PIL enhances the credibility and effectiveness of the judiciary, ensuring that it remains a
vital institution for promoting justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity in society.

In conclusion, PIL serves as an important tool for strengthening the judiciary by expanding its
role in defending the public interest and ensuring that justice is accessible to all, especially
those whose rights might otherwise be overlooked. By enabling courts to intervene in cases
of public concern, PIL ensures that the judiciary not only interprets the law but also actively
promotes justice and upholds constitutional values. Through PIL, courts can respond to the
pressing needs of society and act as a check on governmental power, thereby reinforcing the
rule of law and advancing the broader goals of democracy and social equity.64

4.1.4 Preventing the Abuse of Process of Law

The prevention of abuse of process in law is a crucial aspect of maintaining the integrity of
the judicial system. Abuse of process occurs when legal mechanisms are used not for their
intended purpose but to achieve improper or malicious objectives. This can manifest in
various forms, such as frivolous lawsuits, vexatious litigation, or attempts to misuse the court
system for personal or political gain. In the context of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), this
issue becomes particularly significant, as PIL is intended to serve the public good but can be
misused for settling personal vendettas or achieving ulterior motives.

To prevent such abuses, it is essential for the judiciary to act as a gatekeeper, carefully
screening cases at the outset to ensure that they genuinely serve public interest. Courts must
have the authority to dismiss vexatious or baseless petitions that waste judicial resources and
obstruct the legal process. In addition, imposing penalties or costs on petitioners found guilty
of abusing the system can act as a deterrent. The courts also need to establish clear guidelines
that define the parameters of PIL, specifying who can file such petitions, what constitutes a
public interest matter, and the steps to be followed before pursuing a case. Ensuring
transparency in legal proceedings and encouraging public awareness about the proper use of
legal remedies are also vital in safeguarding against misuse. Ultimately, while the legal

64
A Critical Analysis, National Law University Press, 2005.

89
system must remain accessible65 to all, the courts must strike a balance by ensuring that legal
processes are not hijacked by frivolous or malicious actions that undermine the rule of law.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a concept of great significance within the Indian legal
system, providing an avenue for individuals or groups to challenge violations of fundamental
rights and seek justice for the larger public good. Unlike conventional lawsuits, PIL allows
any individual or organization, without any direct personal interest, to approach the courts on
behalf of the public, especially in cases where the rights of disadvantaged or marginalized
communities are at stake. The roots of PIL in India can be traced back to the landmark
decision in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), where the Supreme Court of
India held that public interest can be litigated in court by anyone, provided it serves a public
purpose.

PIL has played a pivotal role in addressing a wide range of issues, from environmental
protection to the protection of human rights. However, as its application has expanded over
the years, there has been a growing concern about the potential abuse of PIL as a tool for
personal vendettas, political motivations, or vexatious litigation.

The Need for Preventing Abuse of Process of Law

focuses on the issue of preventing the abuse of process in the judicial system, which can
undermine the very purpose of PIL. The abuse of process in PIL can arise in multiple forms,
and it is essential to understand the potential risks associated with an over-application of PIL,
which can burden the judicial system, delay justice, and even be misused to settle personal
scores. Some key aspects of preventing the abuse of process are:

1. Vexatious and Frivolous Petitions: A significant concern in PIL is the filing of

frivolous and vexatious petitions that lack merit or serve no public purpose. These
petitions waste the time and resources of the court and may be filed for personal or
political gain. PIL is often misused to target political opponents or gain media
attention, which goes against its intended purpose of safeguarding public interest.66

o Preventing Frivolous Petitions: The judiciary must scrutinize petitions

carefully to distinguish genuine public interest cases from frivolous ones.

65
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
66
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395

90
 Courts should impose fines or penalties on petitioners who file petitions
without merit to deter the abuse of the PIL mechanism.

2. Personal or Political Vendettas: PIL, by its very nature, allows anyone with an
interest in public good to approach the court. However, this broad access can also be
misused for personal or political reasons. Petitioners may use PIL as a tool to malign
reputations, settle personal scores, or influence political outcomes. The courts must be
cautious to ensure that PIL is not hijacked by political motives or vested interests.

o Judicial Scrutiny of Motives: Judges need to assess the motivations behind

the PIL petition before proceeding with the case. The courts have the
discretion to dismiss petitions that are found to be politically motivated or
filed with ulterior motives.

3. Forum Shopping: Another issue that often arises in the context of PIL is forum
shopping. Petitioners may approach different courts in search of a favorable bench or
judge. This is especially concerning when the same matter is filed repeatedly in
different jurisdictions in an attempt to influence the outcome.

o Uniformity in Court Procedures: Preventing forum shopping is essential to

maintain the integrity of PIL. The courts should discourage repetitive petitions
filed in different jurisdictions and ensure that the case is heard by a competent
bench in the appropriate court.67

4. Abuse of Judicial Processes: Courts must be vigilant against the misuse of PIL by
individuals or organizations who might manipulate the system for their own benefit.
There should be a careful examination of whether the issue at hand genuinely affects
the public at large or is of personal concern to the petitioner.

o Ensuring Public Purpose: PIL petitions should only be entertained if the

matter genuinely pertains to the public interest and not for individua

67
D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 790
In this case, the Supreme Court stressed that PIL should be based on genuine public interest and not on the
personal agenda of the petitioner. This judgment reinforced the idea that courts must ensure that PILs are not
misused for purposes unrelated to public interest.

91
 grievances. The Court must ensure that the petition involves a larger social,
environmental, or constitutional issue that warrants judicial intervention.68

4.1.5 Achieving Constitutional Goals

Public Interest Litigation is often a tool used to fulfill the constitutional goals set out in the
preamble of the Constitution, such as the promotion of social justice, equality, and the
protection of human dignity. PIL plays a crucial role in ensuring that the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution are realized, especially for the disadvantaged and
marginalized sections of society.

The landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which introduced the
"basic structure" doctrine, and the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)69, which
expanded the interpretation of Article 21, demonstrate how PIL can be used to advance
constitutional objectives and protect citizens' rightsPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) serves as a
powerful tool for realizing the constitutional goals set forth in a nation's founding document,
particularly those articulated in the preamble, such as the promotion of social justice,
equality, and the protection of human dignity. The Constitution provides a framework for
ensuring fundamental rights and freedoms for all citizens, yet these rights are often not fully
realized, especially for marginalized and disadvantaged groups. PIL plays a crucial role in
bridging this gap by enabling public-spirited individuals and organizations to bring issues
before the courts, ensuring that constitutional principles are actively enforced, and that the
state's obligations to protect human rights are met.

The preamble of most constitutions, including that of India, outlines objectives that guide the
legal system toward the achievement of social justice, equality, and liberty. However, the
implementation of these ideals requires constant vigilance, particularly in societies where
there are significant inequalities in wealth, education, and access to resources. PIL enables
the judiciary to intervene in cases where the state fails to fulfill its constitutional duties,
especially in matters affecting vulnerable populations such as women, children, the poor, and
other marginalized communities. In this sense, PIL transforms the judiciary into an active

68
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

69
This case, which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, demonstrates the appropriate use of
PIL in advancing constitutional rights. It also highlights the need for judicial scrutiny to ensure that PIL petitions
are not filed for trivial matters or political objectives.

92
participant in achieving the constitutional vision of an egalitarian society, rather than merely a
body that interprets existing laws.

PIL has been instrumental in advancing constitutional objectives, particularly in the

protection and enforcement of fundamental rights. One of the landmark cases in this regard is
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court of India introduced
the "basic structure" doctrine. This doctrine asserts that certain core features of the
Constitution—such as democracy, republicanism, and the rule of law—cannot be altered or
amended by the legislature, even through the constitutional amendment process. The case
was brought forward through PIL, and it underscored the judiciary's role in preserving the
fundamental values and principles of the Constitution, even in the face of political or
legislative pressure. By protecting the "basic structure," the court ensured that the
constitutional vision of a just and equitable society would remain intact, regardless of
attempts to undermine it through legislative changes. This ruling reinforced the judiciary’s
responsibility as a custodian of constitutional values, ensuring that the state cannot violate or
erode the core principles that guarantee citizens' rights and freedoms.

Another significant case demonstrating how PIL advances constitutional goals is Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, but its scope
was historically limited to basic procedural protections. In Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme
Court used PIL to interpret this right expansively, declaring that the right to life is not just
confined to mere existence but includes the right to live with dignity, as well as the right to
travel abroad and pursue one’s personal freedoms. This judgment marked a turning point in
the protection of individual rights, as it broadened the scope of constitutional protections and
emphasized the need for procedural fairness in all matters affecting personal liberty. The case
reinforced the importance of judicial intervention in ensuring that fundamental rights are
upheld and expanded, particularly when state actions threaten to infringe upon personal
freedoms.

The Maneka Gandhi case also demonstrated how PIL can act as a tool to safeguard the
broader constitutional goals of justice and equality. In the years following this judgment, PIL
became a tool through which the courts could address a wide range of social justice issues,
from the protection of women’s rights to the enforcement of environmental regulations. By
interpreting the Constitution in a manner that reflects its underlying values, PIL ensures that

93
the judiciary is not merely a passive observer of legal developments but an active force in
advancing constitutional objectives. PIL allows courts to respond to emerging challenges and
injustices that affect society, ensuring that the constitutional commitment to social justice and
equality is upheld in practice, not just in theory.

Moreover, PIL has proven invaluable in ensuring that constitutional principles reach those
who are most disadvantaged. It has been used to address systemic discrimination and
exclusion based on caste, gender, religion, or socio-economic status. Through PIL, courts
have been able to issue directions that benefit vulnerable groups, such as women facing
gender-based violence, children in need of education, and workers fighting for labor rights.
By making it easier for citizens and organizations to approach the courts in matters of public
interest, PIL empowers individuals to seek judicial redress when the state fails to protect their
constitutional rights.

In conclusion, PIL plays a critical role in achieving the constitutional goals of social justice,
equality, and the protection of human dignity. By enabling citizens to challenge the actions or
inactions of the state, PIL ensures that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
are not only upheld but also expanded to meet the needs of an evolving society. Through
landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Maneka Gandhi, PIL has demonstrated its
capacity to advance constitutional objectives and protect the rights of all citizens, particularly
those who are most vulnerable. In this way, PIL acts as a vital tool for ensuring that the
promises of the Constitution are realized and that the judiciary continues to serve as a
guardian of justice and equality for all70

4.1.6 Protecting Environmental Goals

One of the most prominent and effective uses of PIL has been in the field of environmental
protection. PIL has become a cornerstone in environmental jurisprudence, where it is used to
prevent environmental degradation, ensure compliance with environmental laws, and hold
both the government and private corporations accountable for ecological damage.

The M.C. Mehta cases, such as the Ganga Pollution Case, highlight how PIL has been
instrumental in addressing severe environmental issues, from pollution to the conservation of
natural resources. Through PIL, courts have ordered the closure of polluting industries, the
relocation of hazardous facilities, and the restoration of ecologically sensitive zones. One of
the most prominent and effective uses of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been in the field
70
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

94
of environmental protection. PIL has become a cornerstone in environmental jurisprudence,
providing a powerful legal tool to address environmental issues, ensure compliance with
ecological laws, and hold both the government and private corporations accountable for
environmental damage. By enabling concerned citizens or organizations to approach the
judiciary on behalf of the public good, PIL has become an essential mechanism for combating
environmental degradation and safeguarding natural resources.

Environmental issues often transcend individual interests and have widespread implications
for public health, biodiversity, and the well-being of future generations. In such cases,
traditional legal mechanisms may fail to address the scale of the problem or may not be
accessible to those affected. PIL fills this gap by allowing individuals or groups to bring
important environmental issues before the court, even when they are not directly harmed by
the environmental degradation in question. This has proven particularly important in cases
where large-scale environmental harm is caused by industrial activities, government neglect,
or the failure of regulatory bodies to enforce laws effectively.

A landmark example of PIL's impact on environmental protection can be found in the series
of cases brought forward by the environmental activist M.C. Mehta, who used PIL to address
severe environmental issues, including pollution, deforestation, and the protection of natural
resources. One of the most significant of these cases was the Ganga Pollution Case, where
PIL was used to bring attention to the pollution of the Ganges River, one of India's most
sacred and important natural resources. Mehta's PIL petition highlighted the high levels of
industrial effluents and untreated sewage being dumped into the river, leading to severe water
pollution and harming the health of millions of people who relied on the Ganges for drinking,
bathing, and religious purposes.

In response to this PIL, the Supreme Court of India took strong action, ordering the closure of
polluting industries along the river and directing the government to take steps to clean and
conserve the river. The case marked a turning point in environmental jurisprudence, setting a
precedent for future PIL cases related to environmental protection. The Ganga Pollution
Case and other similar cases demonstrated the effectiveness of PIL in mobilizing judicial
intervention to address urgent environmental issues. Through such PIL cases, the courts have
not only highlighted the state's responsibility to enforce environmental regulations but have
also held corporations accountable for their role in polluting natural resources.

95
The success of PIL in addressing environmental degradation is also evident in cases where
the courts have ordered the relocation of hazardous industries and the restoration of
ecologically sensitive zones. For example, in a case involving the Taj Mahal, PIL was used to
address the environmental impact of nearby industrial pollution, which was threatening the
preservation of the world-renowned monument. In response, the Supreme Court directed the
closure of polluting factories near the Taj Mahal and ordered measures to control air pollution
in the area. This case illustrated how PIL can be used not only to protect natural resources but
also to ensure that cultural heritage sites are preserved for future generations.

PIL has also played a critical role in enforcing environmental laws and regulations, ensuring
that governments and industries comply with their legal obligations to protect the
environment. By enabling citizens to hold the government and private companies accountable
for environmental violations, PIL acts as a check on those who might otherwise evade
responsibility due to powerful political or financial interests. This has been particularly
important in cases involving illegal mining, deforestation, and the destruction of wildlife
habitats, where powerful industries often collude with governmental authorities to bypass
regulations and maximize profits at the expense of the environment.

In addition to addressing immediate environmental concerns, PIL has also contributed to the
development of environmental law in India and other countries. Through judicial activism,
courts have expanded the interpretation of environmental rights, recognizing the importance
of a clean and healthy environment as an essential component of the right to life and personal
liberty. This was affirmed in the landmark case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of
India (1996), where the Supreme Court emphasized the precautionary principle and the
polluter pays principle, both of which are fundamental concepts in modern environmental
law. These principles, often invoked in PIL cases, have helped to shape a more robust legal
framework for environmental protection.

Through PIL, the judiciary has not only provided a forum for addressing specific
environmental issues but has also contributed to the development of a broader environmental
consciousness. Courts have used PIL to raise public awareness about the importance of
conservation, sustainable development, and the need to balance economic growth with
ecological protection. By making environmental issues part of the public discourse, PIL has
helped to galvanize civil society and encouraged greater participation in environmental
protection efforts.

96
In conclusion, PIL has proven to be an indispensable tool in the fight for environmental
justice, enabling citizens and organizations to hold both the government and private
corporations accountable for ecological harm. From the Ganga Pollution Case to the
protection of the Taj Mahal, PIL has demonstrated its effectiveness in tackling environmental
degradation, ensuring compliance with environmental laws, and fostering a more robust
system of environmental governance. By providing a legal mechanism for addressing urgent
environmental issues, PIL has contributed significantly to the preservation of natural
resources, the protection of public health, and the promotion of sustainable development.
Through PIL, the judiciary has reaffirmed its role as a vital guardian of the environment,
ensuring that future generations inherit a healthier and more sustainable world.

4.2 Abuse Of PIL

While PIL has undoubtedly played a significant role in promoting justice, it has also faced
criticism for being misused in certain contexts. Below, we explore the various ways in which
PIL has been abused and the challenges it poses to the legal system. While Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) has undeniably played a transformative role in promoting social justice and
addressing critical public concerns, its misuse has also raised significant challenges within
the legal system. As a powerful tool for ensuring that the law serves the public good, PIL has,
in some instances, been hijacked for purposes other than promoting justice, leading to
unnecessary delays, judicial overreach, and the diversion of judicial resources from more
deserving cases. In this section, we examine the ways in which PIL has been abused, the
negative consequences of such misuse, and the challenges it poses to the judiciary and the
broader legal system.71

1. Filing of Frivolous and Malicious PILs

One of the most common forms of abuse of PIL is the filing of frivolous or malicious
petitions. These are cases where individuals or organizations with no genuine interest in the
matter file PIL petitions for personal gain, political motives, or simply to create disruption. In
some instances, PIL petitions are filed to further personal agendas, such as attacking rivals,
generating publicity, or causing embarrassment to certain individuals or organizations. These
petitions often lack substantive legal merit and are not grounded in any genuine public
interest.

71
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

97
The courts have frequently encountered PIL petitions that serve no constructive purpose,
consuming valuable time and resources that could otherwise be dedicated to addressing more
pressing issues. For example, PILs filed in the name of "public interest" might seek to
challenge trivial matters, such as minor administrative decisions or issues that do not have a
broader societal impact. When the judiciary is forced to deal with such cases, it not only
wastes precious judicial time but also undermines the legitimacy and seriousness of PIL as a
tool for social justice.

2. Judicial Overreach and Intervention in Matters Beyond the Court’s Expertise

Another significant issue with the misuse of PIL is the potential for judicial overreach. PIL
allows the judiciary to intervene in matters of public concern, but this power can be misused
when courts step beyond their constitutional role and encroach on areas traditionally reserved
for the executive or legislative branches. This has raised concerns about the balance of power
and the separation of powers within the governance framework.

In some cases, PIL petitions have led courts to make decisions on matters that fall within the
domain of the executive, such as policymaking, governance, or administrative decisions. For
instance, the judiciary has occasionally intervened in issues related to economic policy, public
welfare schemes, or the allocation of government funds, areas where courts may lack the
expertise to make informed decisions. While judicial intervention can be necessary in
instances of gross rights violations or failures of governance, excessive interference in
matters that require specialized knowledge can be counterproductive and lead to inefficient or
impractical solutions.

Moreover, such interventions can create tensions between the judiciary and other branches of
government, undermining the principles of democratic governance. The risk of judicial
overreach in PIL cases has led to calls for greater judicial restraint and the establishment of
clearer guidelines to determine when judicial intervention is appropriate.

3. Political or Ideological Motivations

In some instances, PIL has been misused for political or ideological purposes. Politicians,
interest groups, or organizations with specific ideological leanings may file PILs to further
their political agenda, disrupt governance, or undermine opponents. This can be particularly
problematic when PILs are used to create political pressure or stir public sentiment around
issues that may not be of genuine public concern.

98
For example, PIL petitions might be filed with the aim of discrediting political leaders,
government policies, or corporate entities, using the court as a platform for political theater.
Such misuse not only diverts the judicial system from its primary purpose of dispensing
justice but also risks diminishing public trust in the PIL process. When the judiciary is
perceived as being manipulated for political gain, it can erode the credibility and integrity of
the legal system as a whole.

4. Strain on Judicial Resources

The abuse of PIL also puts a significant strain on the judiciary’s resources, particularly when
courts are forced to entertain numerous frivolous or non-meritorious petitions. The backlog of
cases in many courts is already a significant issue, and the filing of unnecessary PIL petitions
exacerbates this problem. When courts are burdened with PILs that do not serve a genuine
public interest, it reduces the time and attention available for more urgent and substantive
cases.

In some instances, repeated PILs on the same issue can lead to unnecessary delays and
judicial exhaustion, preventing the courts from addressing more pressing matters.
Additionally, dealing with trivial PIL petitions can create a “clogging” effect, where valuable
judicial time is spent addressing issues that could have been resolved outside the court system
or through alternative means, such as administrative remedies or public awareness
campaigns.

5. Lack of Accountability for PIL Petitioners

Unlike traditional litigation, where the parties involved are often held accountable for the
costs and consequences of pursuing a case, PIL petitioners are often not subject to the same
level of scrutiny or responsibility. In cases where PILs are found to be frivolous or malicious,
there may be little recourse for penalizing those responsible. This lack of accountability
encourages some individuals or groups to file PILs without considering the potential
consequences or harm to the judicial system.

Some courts have sought to address this issue by imposing costs or fines on petitioners whose
PILs are deemed to be without merit. However, such measures are not always consistently
applied, and the lack of accountability can still allow frivolous petitions to proliferate.

6. Exploitation of PIL for Commercial Gain

99
In some cases, PIL has been exploited by commercial entities or interest groups seeking to
use the legal process for financial or business advantages. For example, companies might file
PILs to challenge government policies or regulations that negatively affect their business
interests, even if the broader public interest is not genuinely at stake. Such actions can
undermine the integrity of the PIL system, as they divert the judiciary’s attention away from
cases that serve the public interest and instead focus it on private or commercial concerns.

While PIL remains a valuable and potent tool for social justice, the potential for its misuse
poses significant challenges to the legal system. To ensure that PIL continues to serve its
intended purpose of protecting the public interest, it is essential to establish stricter guidelines
and procedures to prevent abuse. Courts must be vigilant in screening PIL petitions to ensure
that they genuinely address issues of public concern, and petitioners should be held
accountable for frivolous or malicious filings.

4.2.1 Political and Business Interests

One of the main abuses of PIL is when it is filed for ulterior motives, such as political gain or
business interests. PIL is sometimes used to target opponents or competitors under the guise
of public interest. Political groups or individuals may file PILs to discredit or destabilize an
opponent's position, misusing the legal process for political maneuvering.

Similarly, business interests may initiate PILs to gain an upper hand in competition or to
influence public policy decisions in their favor. These types of abuses of PIL undermine its
integrity and divert judicial resources from genuine public interest issues. One of the most
concerning abuses of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arises when it is used for ulterior
motives, such as political gain or business interests, rather than for advancing genuine public
interest. While PIL was conceived as a tool to promote social justice and protect the rights of
vulnerable groups, its misuse for personal, political, or commercial purposes can undermine
the integrity of the legal process and divert precious judicial resources from more legitimate
matters. This section explores how PIL can be manipulated by political groups or businesses,
the consequences of such abuse, and how it poses a challenge to the judicial system.

1. PIL as a Tool for Political Gain

PIL has, on occasion, been hijacked by political parties, activists, or individuals with political
motivations to target opponents or to manipulate public sentiment. This form of abuse
involves filing PIL petitions under the guise of public interest, when, in fact, the true goal is

100
to discredit political rivals, destabilize their position, or create a media spectacle. Politically
motivated PILs are often filed in a manner that aims to tarnish the reputation of government
officials or opposing political figures, by bringing them before the court in a public forum,
even when the underlying issue is trivial or lacking in substance.

For example, PIL petitions may be filed to challenge minor administrative decisions,
government policies, or the actions of political leaders that have little bearing on public
welfare but are perceived as politically advantageous to attack. These petitions are often
framed as addressing public concern but are, in fact, strategically designed to weaken the
political standing of rivals. In such cases, the legal process is misused as a political tool, with
no real effort to bring about meaningful legal or social reform.

This misuse not only wastes the time and resources of the courts but can also result in the
judicial system being perceived as a political battlefield rather than a neutral arbiter of justice.
When the judiciary becomes involved in political disputes or partisan agendas, it risks losing
its credibility as an independent institution, and the public may lose trust in the fairness of
PIL as a mechanism for promoting social good.

2. PIL for Commercial or Business Interests

Another significant form of PIL abuse occurs when businesses or commercial entities file
PILs to further their own economic interests or to gain an advantage over competitors. This
can happen in cases where a business seeks to challenge government policies, regulations, or
decisions that negatively impact their commercial activities, even if such challenges do not
truly serve the public interest.

For example, a company might file a PIL to challenge a government regulation that affects its
industry—such as environmental regulations, labor laws, or pricing controls—arguing that it
harms public welfare, when the real motivation is to protect its profit margins. Similarly, a
business might use PIL to influence public policy or to delay the implementation of policies
that could hurt its bottom line. By presenting the PIL as a public concern, the business can
bypass traditional lobbying or political channels and directly appeal to the judiciary to
influence the outcome of regulatory decisions.

These types of abuses divert the court’s attention from legitimate matters that affect the
public at large, such as human rights, environmental conservation, or social justice issues.
Instead, the legal process is co-opted by commercial entities trying to gain a competitive

101
edge. Moreover, such PILs often focus on issues that primarily affect the business
community, rather than the general public, which can undermine the spirit of PIL as a tool for
social welfare.

3. Consequences of Political and Business Abuse of PIL

The abuse of PIL for political or commercial purposes has serious consequences, both for the
legal system and for society as a whole. First and foremost, it diverts the attention of the
judiciary from genuine public interest issues to petty or private concerns. Courts are often
overburdened with cases that do not contribute to the public good, which delays the
resolution of more pressing legal matters. Judicial time and resources are wasted in resolving
disputes that could be settled through political or administrative channels rather than
litigation.

Furthermore, the manipulation of PIL for political or business gain erodes the credibility of
PIL as a legal tool for social justice. When the public sees PIL being used for personal or
partisan reasons, it undermines trust in the legal process and the impartiality of the judiciary.
PIL, originally conceived as a means to address systemic injustices and human rights
violations, risks being seen as a political or commercial weapon that can be wielded by
powerful individuals or groups to further their own interests.

In addition to this, when PILs are filed for ulterior motives, they often clog the judicial
system, contributing to the already significant backlog of cases in many courts. This results in
delays for cases that genuinely require judicial intervention, thereby undermining the
efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process.

4. Judicial Oversight and Safeguards

To prevent the abuse of PIL for political or business motives, it is essential that courts
exercise greater oversight and scrutiny when considering PIL petitions. Courts must ensure
that the petitions presented truly serve the public interest, rather than the interests of
individual petitioners or specific interest groups.

In order to curb frivolous or politically motivated PILs, courts could establish stricter
guidelines for the acceptance of PIL petitions, ensuring that they meet specific criteria for
addressing significant public concerns. Additionally, courts should consider imposing costs or
penalties on petitioners who file PILs that are found to be without merit, as a deterrent against

102
the misuse of the legal process. Some courts have already adopted this approach in cases
where PILs are filed solely to harass or undermine political opponents.

Moreover, PIL petitions should be examined for their actual impact on public welfare,
ensuring that they do not merely serve the interests of a few but address larger societal issues.
Courts can ask for a more detailed exposition of how the petition addresses the public
interest, and they should reject petitions that are clearly filed for personal, political, or
business purposes.

5. Reaffirming the Integrity of PIL

While the misuse of PIL for ulterior motives poses significant challenges, it is important to
remember that PIL remains a vital tool for protecting the public interest, advancing social
justice, and promoting accountability. To preserve the integrity of PIL, the judiciary must
ensure that this powerful legal instrument is not undermined by frivolous or malicious
petitions. Stricter scrutiny of PIL petitions, as well as sanctions against misuse, can help
safeguard its intended purpose.

The public’s trust in PIL can be reinforced by making sure it remains a tool that holds public
authorities accountable, protects marginalized communities, and addresses pressing social
issues. By reining in the abuse of PIL for political or business gain, the judiciary can ensure
that PIL continues to serve as a force for good, promoting genuine social change and justice
in society.

4.2.2 Hindering Development

PIL can sometimes be misused to halt or delay essential developmental projects. Though the
intention of PIL is to protect the public interest, it has occasionally been used to obstruct
projects related to infrastructure development, industrialization, or urbanization. Such misuse
can hinder economic progress and delay critical projects that could benefit society at large,
especially in developing countries.

For instance, PILs challenging the construction of dams, highways, or factories can slow
down important development work. While it is crucial to balance development with
environmental and social considerations, PILs should not be used as a tool to indefinitely stall
projects without valid grounds. While Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been a powerful
tool for advancing justice and protecting public welfare, it can sometimes be misused to halt
or delay critical developmental projects. Though the intent behind PIL is to serve the public

103
interest, its misuse in blocking infrastructure, industrialization, or urbanization initiatives can
obstruct economic growth and hinder progress, particularly in developing countries. These
projects are often vital for a nation's development, creating jobs, improving living standards,
and contributing to long-term economic stability. However, when PILs are filed with the aim
of stalling such projects without substantial or valid grounds, they can cause significant
delays and disruption, ultimately undermining the very goals PIL was designed to promote.

1. PILs as Tools to Block Infrastructure Projects

One of the most common areas where PIL has been misused is in the obstruction of large-
scale infrastructure projects. For instance, the construction of dams, highways, bridges, and
factories are often challenged through PIL petitions, with petitioners citing concerns over
environmental damage, displacement of communities, or potential public harm. While it is
essential that such concerns be taken seriously, the filing of PIL petitions to indefinitely halt
these projects can lead to extended legal battles and protracted delays, which, in turn, affect
the timely delivery of critical infrastructure that can benefit millions of people.

For example, PIL petitions have been filed in India against the construction of dams like the
Sardar Sarovar Dam and other hydropower projects, citing environmental degradation,
displacement of tribal populations, and loss of biodiversity. While such concerns are
legitimate and must be addressed, these legal challenges have, at times, led to delays in the
execution of projects that could provide substantial benefits to society, such as irrigation for
agriculture, flood control, and power generation. In some cases, the protracted litigation has
resulted in uncertainty for developers, making it difficult to move forward with projects, even
when the benefits far outweigh the potential negative impacts.

Similarly, PILs have been used to challenge the construction of roads, highways, and
transportation infrastructure, often citing environmental or human rights issues. While the
importance of environmental protection and social justice cannot be overstated, PILs that
seek to indefinitely delay or stop such projects without providing viable alternatives can
hinder the overall development process. These delays can stifle economic growth, impede
access to essential services, and exacerbate social inequality, particularly in regions where
infrastructure is already underdeveloped.

2. PILs Hindering Industrialization and Economic Development

104
Another area where PIL has been misused is in obstructing industrial projects that are crucial
for economic development. In many developing countries, industrialization is key to creating
jobs, boosting productivity, and attracting foreign investment. However, PIL petitions are
sometimes filed against the establishment of factories, power plants, or other industrial units,
citing concerns over pollution, worker rights, and safety issues.

While it is absolutely necessary to ensure that industries adhere to environmental standards

and workers' rights are protected, PILs that are filed without sufficient evidence or with the
intent to delay industrial projects can harm the broader economic objectives of a country.
Industrialization is often a key driver of job creation and economic progress, and delays in
such projects can lead to a loss of investment opportunities, reduction in job prospects, and
stunted economic growth.

For example, PILs against the establishment of manufacturing units, especially in industrial
zones, may be filed by local communities or environmental groups concerned about the
potential adverse effects of such industries on their surroundings. While these concerns must
be heard and addressed, using PIL as a tool to delay or obstruct such projects without proper
assessment of the long-term benefits and mitigation measures can lead to a loss of momentum
in industrial development and hinder efforts to improve the standard of living for large
segments of the population.

3. Environmental and Social Concerns: A Necessary Balance

It is important to note that PIL is, in many cases, a vital instrument for raising concerns about
the environmental and social implications of large-scale development projects. Issues such as
deforestation, pollution, displacement of indigenous communities, and the depletion of
natural resources must be carefully considered and addressed in any development project. PIL
has successfully been used to hold government agencies and private companies accountable
for their actions, ensuring that environmental laws are upheld and that vulnerable
communities are not unfairly harmed.

However, the key challenge lies in finding a balance between protecting the environment and
society’s need for development. While PILs can and should be used to highlight the need for
sustainability, they should not be used to obstruct projects indefinitely without proposing
feasible solutions. Courts should ensure that PILs filed for environmental or social reasons
are based on evidence and genuinely aim to improve the project’s design or execution, rather
than serving as a tool for stalling development entirely.

105
For instance, rather than seeking to stop a development project, a PIL can be used to propose
alternatives or improvements, such as better environmental impact assessments, enhanced
mitigation measures, or compensation for displaced populations. By focusing on constructive
solutions rather than outright opposition, PIL can play a positive role in ensuring that
development projects contribute to the well-being of society while minimizing their negative
impact on the environment.

4. The Risk of Excessive Judicial Intervention

The potential for PIL misuse in halting developmental projects is also a result of excessive
judicial intervention in areas where the executive and legislative branches should ideally take
the lead. In cases where PILs are filed to stop or delay infrastructure and industrialization
efforts, the judiciary is often asked to weigh in on matters that involve complex trade-offs
between development, environmental protection, and social justice. While judicial review is
an essential aspect of ensuring accountability, excessive intervention in developmental
matters can lead to delays and judicial overreach.

In some cases, PIL petitions are used as a strategy to pressurize the government or developers
into making concessions, such as altering project plans, changing timelines, or implementing
additional social welfare measures. While such negotiations can be valuable, they also run the
risk of delaying essential projects that are already designed with appropriate safeguards in
place. Courts must strike a balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring that
PILs are not used as a tool for obstructing progress or forcing unreasonably burdensome
conditions on developmental projects.

5. The Need for a Balanced Approach

To prevent the misuse of PIL in obstructing essential developmental projects, it is important

to ensure that PILs are filed with genuine intent and are based on well-founded concerns.
Courts must carefully scrutinize PIL petitions to ensure that they are not being used for
ulterior motives or as a tool to indefinitely delay development without valid legal grounds.

At the same time, it is equally important for governments and developers to engage in
transparent and open dialogue with the public, taking into account the social, environmental,
and economic implications of major projects. By ensuring that development projects are
designed and executed with a focus on sustainability and social welfare, the need for PIL

106
petitions can be minimized, and the public can have confidence in the decision-making
process.

In conclusion, while PIL is an important tool for holding authorities accountable and
protecting the public interest, its misuse in halting or delaying developmental projects can
have serious consequences for economic growth and progress. PILs that seek to block
essential infrastructure, industrialization, or urbanization must be carefully evaluated to
ensure they genuinely serve the public interest and are not used to obstruct development
without valid reasons. A balanced approach—where both development and public concerns
are given fair consideration—can help ensure that PIL remains an instrument of justice, not a
barrier to progress.

4.2.3 Publicity Interest Utilization

Some individuals or organizations file PILs merely to gain public attention or media
coverage, without any genuine concern for public welfare. These PILs often lack merit and
are filed with the sole purpose of creating a public spectacle, gaining media attention, or
promoting personal or institutional agendas.

The misuse of PILs for publicity can dilute the impact of PIL in addressing real social issues,
as the courts may become overwhelmed with frivolous or sensationalized cases that do not
genuinely serve the public interest. Misuse of PIL for Publicity and Personal Gain

Another form of abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) occurs when individuals or
organizations file petitions solely to gain public attention or media coverage, rather than
addressing genuine issues of public welfare. In these cases, the PILs lack substantial merit
and are often filed with the intention of creating a public spectacle, generating media buzz, or
advancing personal, political, or institutional agendas. This misuse of PIL can have serious
consequences for the legal system and can dilute the effectiveness of PIL as a tool for
addressing real social issues.

1. Filing PILs for Personal or Institutional Agendas

PILs are sometimes filed by individuals or organizations who have personal or institutional
interests in generating publicity. These petitioners may be motivated by the desire to enhance
their own public profile, promote a political cause, or advance a particular agenda—rather
than by a genuine concern for public welfare. For instance, celebrities, activists, or even

107
political figures might file PILs not out of a real desire to address an urgent societal issue, but
to gain media attention or public visibility.

In some cases, organizations with specific political or ideological leanings may file PILs to
push their agenda, often without a direct connection to the matter at hand. By framing the
issue in terms of the public interest, they can use the legal system to amplify their message,
while creating the illusion that they are advocating for the welfare of the masses. This
diversion of PIL for personal or ideological purposes compromises the fundamental objective
of PIL: to promote genuine public welfare, social justice, and accountability.

2. Frivolous PILs and Judicial Overload

The filing of PILs for the purpose of gaining publicity or self-promotion often leads to
frivolous or sensationalized cases that waste valuable judicial time and resources. These PILs
typically lack legal substance, fail to address significant societal issues, or are based on trivial
or irrelevant matters. Courts, already burdened with a high volume of cases, must divert
attention away from more serious matters to entertain these meritless petitions.

For example, some PIL petitions have been filed on topics such as minor administrative
issues or issues that do not have a broad societal impact. These petitions often make bold,
sweeping claims about public welfare, but upon further examination, they reveal little more
than a desire to create a media spectacle or gain attention for the petitioner. This misuse of
PIL can create a backlog in the courts and reduce the time and energy available for hearing
petitions that truly require judicial intervention.

In addition to wasting judicial resources, frivolous PILs also contribute to the erosion of
public confidence in the legal system. When the public sees PILs being used as a tool for self-
promotion rather than as a mechanism for justice, it may undermine trust in the efficacy of
PILs. People may begin to view PIL as a mere publicity stunt rather than a powerful tool for
advancing the rights and welfare of marginalized groups.

3. Media Sensationalism and Public Perception

One of the key issues with PILs filed for publicity is the role that media sensationalism plays
in amplifying these cases. PILs that involve high-profile figures, controversial issues, or
sensational claims tend to attract media attention. This media coverage can create an inflated
sense of importance around a PIL, even if the underlying issue is trivial or the case lacks legal
merit.

108
Media outlets, eager for engaging stories, may give extensive coverage to PILs, framing them
as high-profile legal battles with far-reaching implications. This can lead to the public being
misled about the significance of the case or the genuine merit of the issues being raised.
When PILs are reduced to media spectacles, the public may be distracted from the real social
challenges that require attention and action, such as issues of poverty, human rights
violations, or environmental degradation. In extreme cases, media-driven PILs can lead to
distorted narratives about the state of the legal system or create false impressions of judicial
activism.

4. Dilution of PIL’s Impact on Real Social Issues

The most damaging consequence of PILs being used for publicity is the dilution of its power
to address real social issues. PIL was created to empower individuals or organizations to
approach the courts on behalf of the public interest, especially when marginalized
communities or vulnerable groups face injustice. However, when PILs are filed for publicity
or personal gain, they undermine the effectiveness of this important legal tool.

Rather than focusing on systemic issues such as the protection of human rights,
environmental conservation, or ensuring access to basic services like healthcare and
education, PILs filed for personal, or publicity reasons often focus on superficial issues that
do not contribute meaningfully to public welfare. When the judiciary becomes entangled in
these distractions, it detracts from the court’s ability to address pressing societal challenges
and promote justice where it is truly needed.

Furthermore, the growing tendency to use PIL for publicity also has the potential to create
public cynicism around the legal system. If the courts begin to entertain frivolous PILs or
those that are clearly aimed at generating media attention, it can diminish the credibility of
PIL as a serious tool for societal change. In turn, the public may lose faith in the legal
process, especially if they begin to see PIL as a vehicle for self-promotion rather than as an
instrument for justice.

5. Protecting the Integrity of PIL: Judicial Scrutiny

To prevent PIL from being misused for publicity or personal gain, it is crucial for courts to
exercise greater scrutiny when considering PIL petitions. Judicial oversight is essential in
ensuring that PILs serve the public interest and are not used merely as a platform for self-
promotion.

109
Courts should ensure that PIL petitions meet certain criteria before they are admitted,
including demonstrating that the issue at hand is of genuine public concern and that it cannot
be resolved through other means. In addition, courts may want to impose costs or penalties on
petitioners who file frivolous PILs, as a way of deterring misuse and ensuring that the legal
process remains focused on real issues.

Moreover, courts can encourage a more stringent assessment of the petitioner's standing,
verifying that the individual or organization filing the PIL has a direct stake in the issue or a
history of engagement with the subject matter. By reinforcing these safeguards, the judiciary
can help maintain PIL’s integrity as a tool for social change rather than as a vehicle for
personal aggrandizement or media attention.

4.2.4 Private Interest Enforcement

Another major concern with PIL is when it is used to serve private interests. PIL is intended
to address issues of broad public concern; however, there have been instances where PILs
have been filed to protect private or personal grievances, under the guise of public interest.

For example, PILs have sometimes been used to address issues such as family disputes,
contractual matters, or business conflicts, which should be dealt with through regular legal
channels rather than through PIL. One of the most significant concerns surrounding Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) is its occasional misuse to serve private or personal grievances. PIL,
by design, is intended to address matters of broad public concern, typically involving issues
that affect society at large or marginalized communities. However, there have been instances
where PILs have been filed not to advance the public interest but to address private disputes,
personal grievances, or business conflicts, under the guise of serving the greater good. This
abuse undermines the credibility of PIL as a powerful tool for societal justice and diverts the
judicial system’s resources from pressing public issues.

1. Filing PILs for Family Disputes

One of the most problematic forms of misuse occurs when PILs are filed to resolve personal
matters, particularly family disputes. Family law issues such as divorce, custody battles, or
inheritance disputes are deeply personal and should be addressed through appropriate legal
channels, such as family courts. However, in certain cases, PILs have been filed to bring such
private matters before the higher courts, claiming they involve broader societal concerns or
public welfare.

110
For example, a party involved in a contentious divorce or custody battle might file a PIL
claiming that the matter at hand has wider implications for society, even when the issue is
purely personal. While it is certainly possible that family disputes could have broader social
or legal implications (e.g., cases involving child welfare or women's rights), the abuse of PIL
to address these individual issues distorts the purpose of PIL. Courts are ill-equipped to
handle such personal grievances, and using PIL as a forum for family disputes only wastes
judicial time and resources, potentially delaying resolution for those cases that genuinely
affect public interests.

2. PILs for Contractual and Business Disputes

Another area where PIL is misused is in resolving contractual matters or business conflicts. In
commercial disputes, businesses or individuals might resort to PILs to try to gain an
advantage in legal or financial matters by claiming that the dispute has wider public
ramifications. However, contractual issues—such as disputes over breach of contract,
payment issues, or terms of business agreements—are inherently private matters that should
be settled through commercial litigation or arbitration, not PIL.

In some instances, business interests may file PILs to challenge government policies or
regulatory decisions that they believe adversely affect their commercial ventures. These PILs
are often framed as matters of public interest, but in reality, they primarily serve the
economic or competitive interests of the petitioning party. For example, a company might file
a PIL against a policy that benefits a competitor or an industry practice that they view as
unfavorable to their bottom line. While such cases may have broader economic implications,
they do not qualify as matters of public interest in the same sense as human rights violations
or environmental degradation.

When PILs are used to address business disputes, they not only misuse the judicial process
but also divert attention away from genuine issues that affect the public, such as consumer
rights, public health, or social justice. The legal system is not intended to serve as a tool for
corporate rivalry or personal profit, and such abuses of PIL can lead to delays in the
adjudication of more pressing public issues.

3. PILs for Personal Grievances Under the Guise of Public Interest

A particularly insidious form of PIL misuse is when individuals use the mechanism to
advance personal grievances or vendettas against others, including public figures or

111
institutions. For instance, an individual who feels wronged by a government department or a
public official might file a PIL claiming that the issue has wider social or political
ramifications, even when the matter is primarily a personal grievance.

In these cases, the petitioner often frames the issue as something that affects society or a
certain group of people, in order to lend it an aura of legitimacy and public importance.
However, the case might be rooted in a purely personal complaint, such as an issue with a
government office’s administrative procedures or a minor instance of negligence. For
example, a person who has had a bad experience with a government agency might file a PIL
alleging that the agency’s actions reflect a systemic issue, even when the dispute is solely
between the individual and the agency.

Such PILs are a form of abuse because they manipulate the legal system to seek redress for
personal grievances rather than public wrongs. These cases are often resolved more
efficiently through administrative remedies or smaller claims courts, and attempting to
elevate them to the level of PIL detracts from the real public interest cases that require
judicial intervention.

4. Judicial Overreach and the Role of Courts

The misuse of PIL to address private or personal grievances presents a challenge for the
judiciary in terms of maintaining the integrity of PIL as a tool for social justice. When courts
are compelled to entertain PILs that are based on private disputes, there is a risk of judicial
overreach, where the courts take on roles that they are not equipped or mandated to perform.

For example, courts that hear PILs related to family or business disputes are often asked to
make decisions based on personal circumstances or contractual terms that are outside the
scope of public interest. These matters are better suited to specialized courts such as family
courts, consumer courts, or commercial courts, which are designed to handle such cases. By
accepting PILs for issues that are private in nature, courts may inadvertently step into areas
where they lack the expertise or mandate, potentially making decisions that are not in the
public interest.

Moreover, judicial intervention in private matters through PIL can create a precedent for
future cases where individuals or organizations seek to address personal issues using PIL,
further clogging the courts with cases that should be dealt with through other legal
mechanisms.

112
5. The Importance of Maintaining PIL’s Integrity

To prevent PIL from being used to address private grievances, it is essential for courts to
maintain strict scrutiny over the admissibility of PIL petitions. Courts should ensure that PILs
are filed only for issues that genuinely concern the public at large or involve significant
social, environmental, or constitutional matters.

Judicial oversight is necessary to differentiate between legitimate PILs that address systemic
issues or violations of public rights, and those that are essentially private matters dressed up
as public interest cases. Courts should carefully examine the standing of petitioners to ensure
that they are representing a genuine public interest and not merely advancing a personal
agenda. Additionally, penalties or costs should be imposed on petitioners who abuse the PIL
process to pursue personal or private grievances.

6. Conclusion: Preserving the Purpose of PIL

PIL was created as a mechanism to address issues that affect society as a whole, particularly
when vulnerable or marginalized groups are unable to seek redress through traditional legal
avenues. However, when PILs are misused to address private disputes—such as family
matters, contractual disagreements, or personal grievances—it diminishes the potential of PIL
to promote genuine social justice.

4.2.5 Harassment of Opponents

Finally, PIL has been abused to harass individuals or organizations. In some cases, PIL
petitions are filed with the intention of harassing or intimidating people, corporations, or
public authorities. This may involve filing frivolous PILs with no substantive basis, which
forces the targeted parties to engage in lengthy and costly legal proceedings. This abuse of
PIL not only wastes judicial time but also undermines public faith in the system.

Abuse of PIL for Harassment and Intimidation

A particularly concerning abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) occurs when it is used as a
tool to harass or intimidate individuals, organizations, or public authorities. PIL, intended to
address issues that affect the broader public or marginalized groups, has occasionally been
weaponized to target specific individuals or entities, forcing them into unnecessary legal
battles. This form of abuse involves filing frivolous PILs with little or no substantive legal
basis, solely to harass or put pressure on the parties involved. Such abuses not only waste

113
valuable judicial resources but also undermine public trust in the legal system, as the courts
become entangled in petty disputes that should not be addressed through PIL.

1. Filing Frivolous PILs to Harass Individuals or Corporations

In some cases, PIL petitions are strategically filed against individuals or corporations, not out
of genuine concern for the public interest, but to harass, intimidate, or damage the reputation
of the target. The petitioner may have personal grievances, or a financial or political interest
in harming the reputation of a business, public official, or other entity. By framing the dispute
as a public interest issue, the petitioner can exploit the PIL process to force the targeted party
into a prolonged legal battle.

For example, a corporation that is involved in a business dispute may find itself facing a PIL
from a competitor or an individual seeking to harm its operations. The PIL might allege
violations of public welfare laws or environmental standards, even though the actual intent
behind the petition is to undermine the company’s public image or disrupt its business
operations. Similarly, an individual who feels wronged by a public official or a government
agency may file a PIL alleging public harm, despite the matter being more personal in nature.

In these cases, the respondent—whether an individual, corporation, or government body—

must then divert significant time and resources to defend against the frivolous claims. Even if
the case is ultimately dismissed, the damage caused by the legal proceedings can be
substantial, especially if the case receives media attention or affects public perception of the
accused party.

2. Wasting Judicial Time and Resources

The use of PILs for harassment or intimidation significantly wastes judicial time and
resources. Courts, already burdened with a backlog of cases, must devote time to review and
hear PILs that are filed without legitimate grounds. This diverts attention away from genuine
cases that require judicial intervention in matters of public interest, such as human rights
violations, environmental protection, or the enforcement of social justice.

When PILs are filed with the sole purpose of harassment, they often involve trivial or
unfounded claims that do not have a reasonable basis in law. The courts may spend
considerable time considering these cases, only for them to be dismissed due to their lack of
merit. This not only delays the resolution of cases that actually have significant social
implications but also adds to the burden of an already overburdened judiciary. As a result, the

114
effective functioning of the legal system is compromised, and the efficiency of the judiciary
in addressing serious public interest matters is diminished.

3. Financial and Psychological Burden on Targeted Parties

The abuse of PIL to harass can place a significant financial and psychological burden on the
individuals or organizations targeted by such petitions. Legal proceedings are often costly,
and even if a PIL is ultimately dismissed, the target may still face substantial legal fees,
reputational damage, and the emotional toll of enduring a prolonged battle in the courts.

For businesses, this could mean diverting resources away from productive operations to deal
with baseless legal claims, potentially harming their bottom line. For individuals, especially
public figures or officials, this harassment can tarnish their personal and professional
reputations, even if the allegations are later proven false. The psychological stress of being
involved in a lengthy, unfounded legal proceeding can also have lasting effects on the well-
being of those targeted.

Moreover, the courts may be forced to issue repeated judgments, rulings, and responses in
cases where the PIL has no merit, further compounding the financial and emotional costs for
the accused.

4. Undermining Public Trust in the Legal System

Perhaps the most damaging consequence of PIL abuse for harassment is the erosion of public
faith in the judicial system. When PIL is used for personal or political agendas, rather than
genuine public interest concerns, the public may begin to perceive the legal system as being
susceptible to manipulation. This undermines the core purpose of PIL: to empower citizens to
seek justice for matters that affect society at large.

If PIL petitions are perceived as being tools for harassment or intimidation, people may
become hesitant to file legitimate PILs in the future, fearing that the system could be hijacked
by malicious actors. The credibility of the legal process, which relies on the public's trust in
its fairness and impartiality, is at risk when PIL is misused. Over time, this erosion of trust
can contribute to broader cynicism about the judicial process, making it harder for courts to
effectively serve their role as protectors of the Constitution and enforcers of justice.

5. Safeguards Against Harassment and Misuse of PIL

115
To preserve the integrity of PIL and prevent its misuse for harassment, it is essential for the
judiciary to be vigilant and apply stricter scrutiny when considering PIL petitions. Courts
should establish clear guidelines to ensure that PILs are filed only for matters of genuine
public concern. This includes verifying that the petitioner has standing to bring the case
forward and that the issues raised are relevant to the public interest, rather than being
personal grievances.

Judicial oversight is particularly important in cases where there are signs that the PIL may be
intended to harass or intimidate. Courts should be proactive in identifying patterns of
frivolous petitions or instances where PILs have been filed repeatedly by the same
individuals or organizations against the same targets. In such cases, the judiciary can impose
penalties, such as costs or fines, on those filing frivolous PILs, to deter further abuse of the
system.

Additionally, the courts can encourage mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mechanisms for cases that are primarily personal or private in nature, rather than allowing
these disputes to occupy the time and resources of the judicial system. This would help
ensure that PIL remains focused on systemic issues and societal concerns, while reducing the
opportunity for abuse.

6. Conclusion: Ensuring PIL Remains a Tool for Justice

While PIL remains a powerful tool for advancing public interest and promoting justice, its
misuse for harassment and intimidation poses a serious threat to its integrity. When PIL is
used to target individuals or organizations with frivolous or malicious claims, it not only
wastes judicial resources but also harms the reputations and well-being of the accused parties.
This misuse undermines public trust in the judicial system and threatens the core purpose of
PIL.

To preserve PIL’s effectiveness as a mechanism for social justice, it is crucial that the
judiciary take proactive steps to identify and address abuse. By applying stricter scrutiny to
PIL petitions, holding petitioners accountable for frivolous cases, and ensuring that PILs are
used only for matters of legitimate public concern, the legal system can maintain its role as a
guardian of constitutional values and ensure that PIL continues to serve its true purpose: to
protect the rights and interests of the public

116
117
 CHAPTER- 5

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN PIL CASES

5.1. ISSUES IN ODISHA

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases are an accessible legal pathway for tackling public
complaints and societal problems in Odisha, as they are in other regions of India.
Nevertheless, the submission as well as successful settlement of PILs in the state are both
influenced by a number of challenges. These obstacles encompass procedural in nature
financial, and societal impediments, in addition to constraints within the judiciary. The
following are several significant challenges and difficulties with accessibility that are
associated with the filing of PIL petitions in Odisha:

1. Legal Literacy and Awareness

Lack of Awareness: A substantial portion of the population in Odisha, particularly in rural and
tribal areas, is unaware of the legal mechanisms that are accessible to them, which includes
PILs. It is possible that a significant number of potential petitioners are unaware that they
have the option to pursue legal action through public interest litigation (PIL) in order to
address public concerns.

Limited Legal Literacy: Marginalized communities in Odisha exhibit a low level of legal
literacy. This obstructs the comprehension of fundamental legal rights and the procedure of
submitting PILs. People are unable to identify when their rights are being breached or to seek
redress through the courts if they lack legal awareness72.

2. Financial Obstacles

High legal expenses: Despite the fact that PILs are intended to be a cost-effective instrument
for public interest, the associated expenses, including lawyer fees, documentation, and travel
costs to courts, can discourage probable respondents, specifically those from economically
disadvantaged sections of society.

72
Nath, H.R. (2015). PIL Strategy in Advancing the Rights of Have-Nots’ in India: Issues and Challenges.
[online] Ssrn.com. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2734687 [Accessed 3 Nov.
2024].

118
Legal Aid Accessibility: Despite the fact that the Odisha State Legal Services Authority
(OSLSA) provides legal aid, a significant number of potential litigants are oblivious of these
services. In certain instances, the quality and availability of legal aid for PILs may be
restricted, particularly in remote regions.

2. Difficulties in the Procedural Process

Formal Requirements: Procedural formalities, including the drafting of petitions, the

collection of evidence, and the submission of the petition in the appropriate court, continue to
be applicable in PIL cases, despite the modified norms of locus standi. Navigating these
procedures can be a daunting experience for ordinary citizens, particularly those in tribal and
rural regions, in the absence of legal assistance. The legal structure in remote areas of Odisha
is underdeveloped, which results in the difficulty of accessing courts, particularly for those
residing in tribal or rural areas. Accessibility challenges are further exacerbated by being
geographically far from courts and the absence of transportation.

3. Delays in the Judicial Process

Pendency of Cases: Odisha, like numerous other Indian states, is confronted with a
substantial accumulation of cases in its judiciary. This impacts the prompt resolution of PIL
cases. Delays in the consideration of public interest litigation (PILs) can render the requests
ineffective, particularly in cases that necessitate immediate action, such as human rights
violations or environmental degradation73.

Inconsistent Results: In certain cases, the outcome may be delayed as a result of the tardy
implementation of court orders, even after a PIL has been filed and heard. This undermines
the public's confidence in PILs as a successful remedy.

4. Obstacles for Marginalized Communities

Indigenous Tribal Communities Exclusion: Odisha is home to a significant number of native

tribal communities, many of which are systemically excluded from legal processes. These
communities frequently endure the most severe consequences of environmental exploitation,
displacement, and land acquisition disputes; however, they are unable to file PILs due to a
lack of legal resources and advocacy.

73
Ho, T.M.P. (2020). Measuring Conceptual Understanding, Procedural Fluency and Integrating Procedural and
Conceptual Knowledge in Mathematical Problem Solving. International Journal of Scientific Research and
Management, 8(05), pp.1334–1350. doi:https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v8i05.el02.

119
Language Barriers: The use of English or Hindi in court proceedings can be a hindrance for
tribal or rural residents in Odisha who communicate indigenous languages or dialects. Their
capacity to interact with the justice system effectively is restricted by this linguistic divide.

6. Frivolous PILs and Misuse

Absurd or frustrating PILs: There has been an increasing apprehension regarding the abuse of
PILs for personal benefit, political purposes, or to settle grievances with adversaries. The
judiciary is burdened by these frivolous PILs, which impede the hearing of actual cases that
necessitate immediate attention. This issue has been observed in Odisha, particularly in cases
involving industrial development and land disputes.

The lack of a formal mechanism to filter frivolous PILs means that courts expend precious
resources and time on issues that do not serve the general interest, thus restricting
accessibility for serious issues. This is despite the expectation that courts will screen out
frivolous PILs.

7. Inadequate Judicial Capacity

Overloaded Judiciary: The Orissa High Court and lower courts are frequently overwhelmed
with routine cases, which results in a restricted capacity to promptly and effectively address
PILs. This has an impact on the efficacy and focus of public interest matters. Inadequate
Resources: The increasing number of PILs may result in delayed fairness and a lack of
concentrated focus on important cases, particularly in rural Odisha, where courts may lack
adequate facilities or personnel74.

8. Resistance from the government

Resistance from Authorities: In certain instances, government authorities may resist the
execution of court orders, particularly when public interest litigation (PILs) contest state
policies or industrial projects that have a financial impact. The execution of court directives is
further complicated by the frequent opposition from both the government and private
companies to PILs concerning land acquisition, mining, and industrial development in
Odisha.

74
Jacobs, J.B. (1986). Exceptions to a General Prohibition on Handgun Possession: Do They Swallow up the
Rule? Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(1), p.5. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1191608.

120
Political Interference: In specific instances, the efficacy of PILs is compromised by political
meddling or duress from influential interest groups. This fosters a hostile environment for
legitimate public interest litigation, especially when it confronts vested interests.

9. Delayed Enforcement of Court Orders

Weak Enforcement: The carrying out of the court's orders is frequently sluggish or
insufficient, even when a court rules in favour of a PIL. For example, in cases involving
displacement or environmental issues, government agencies may neglect to promptly
implement the court's orders, resulting in a delay in providing relief to the impacted
population.
Inadequate Follow-Up Mechanisms: In order to guarantee adherence to court orders, public
interest litigation (PILs) necessitate robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Nevertheless, it is common for petitioners or civil society groups in Odisha to fail to follow
up, resulting in ineffective implementation75.

10. Inadequate Civil Society Engagement

Function of nongovernmental organizations: Although numerous NGOs and civil society

organizations in Odisha are involved in the filing of PILs, their influence is frequently
restricted, particularly in the tribal and inland regions. A broader partnership between legal
activists and grassroots organizations is required to guarantee the widespread use of PIL as a
tool for justice.

Capacity-Building: Additionally, civil society organizations require capacity-building to

optimize their utilization of the PIL mechanism. The judiciary is not effectively engaged by a
significant number of NGOs due to a lack of legal expertise or resources.

In conclusion, Although Public Interest Litigation has provided Odisha with new
opportunities for social justice, the process is confronted with numerous obstacles,
particularly in terms of accessibility for those who are marginalized. The efficacy of PILs is
restricted by judicial delays, political resistance, and economic, legal, and infrastructural
obstacles. In order to guarantee that PILs in Odisha genuinely serve the public interest, it is
necessary to address these issues through the implementation of stronger enforcement
mechanisms, enhanced legal aid services, and increased legal literacy.
75
Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), pp.77–101.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389408425031.

121
5.2. LIMITATIONS AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

This lawsuit is against any public interest, as stated in the public interest lawsuit. According
to certain individuals of insight, public interest litigation can be filed in any legal court by
individuals of public spirit with the objective of safeguarding the public interest. Presently, a
query arises: What is the concept of public interest? Any action that is taken in the public
benefit is in the best interests of everyone. The public's interest in these activities is evident in
the following: acts of pollution, terrorism, transportation safety, and building hazards. As it is
stated that this petition has the potential to garner public attention, it is imperative that you
consider more than just your own interests. This can only be expressed in words: the act of
presenting a PIL for society may be concealed in a minor portion of his interests; however,
this does not preclude him from submitting. He has the right to file an action in the public
interest, as this is a matter of public interest.

Public interest litigation is not defined by any regulation or law. The adjudicator clarified that
the public's intentions should be taken into account. Under Article 226 of the High Court and
Article 32 of the Supreme Court, this is equivalent to a Written Petition to the High Court or
Supreme Court. It may be submitted on the basis of extensive public interest. However, the
petition is not justified solely by the effect on a single individual. In specific domains,
lawsuits may be initiated in the public interest76.

Disrespects the fundamental human rights of the impoverished.

The content or conduct of government policy.

Compelling municipalities to fulfil their public obligations.

Violation of religious or other fundamental liberties.

In these primary regions, the State/Central government, the Municipality, and not any private
group, are the entities against which public interest lawsuits may be filed. Nevertheless,
private parties may be included with the consent of the appropriate authority. The petition is
also submitted to the High Court or the Supreme Court, as is the case with other written
petitions.
The cost of this service is predetermined, and the hearing process is identical to that of other

76
Jain, D.E. and Jonika Lamba (2024). Public Interest Litigation: Misuse of Civil Weapon of Justice. IARS’
International Research Journal, 14(01), pp.39–42. doi:https://doi.org/10.51611/iars.irj.v14i01.2024.251.

122
cases. The letter of the complaint was regarded as a public interest lawsuit by justices in the
early 1990s. Consequently, the letter can also be classified as a public interest lawsuit. The
public interest can be safeguarded through the selection of committees, final orders, and
numerous remedies as an interim measure.

The initial PIL case in India was filed in 1976 under the appellation Majdur Kaamgar Sabha
v/s Abdul bhai Faizulla bhai. Krishna Iyar, a distinguished jurist, permits a collective of
individuals to submit an inquiry on for others. Violation of the liberties of members Krishna
Iyar is of the opinion that a single individual or a group of individuals can file a lawsuit in
court. However, the misuse of this petition has been evident for some time. This is a prevalent
issue in PIL, and it is frequently exploited by numerous individuals. PIL was exploited in
numerous instances, as evidenced by the case of S.P. Gupta v. U.O.I. PIL may be abused in
this scenario. This was succeeded by Shushes Kumar v. Indian League. In this instance, the
corporation has a manager who is exiled by his superior. Despite the fact that he had no
legitimate purpose to serve as a PIL, he did so.

Recent developments in the country's public interest litigation (PIL) have revealed their own
drawbacks and shortcomings. Fair causes as well as cases that truly captivated the public's
attention are actually antiquated. Nationally negligent PIL activists have commenced to play
a significant non-constructive role in litigation. In lieu of the conventional remedy, they
endeavour to implement this unconventional treatment at a reduced cost. This concise mini
article provides a summary overview of emerging diseases and prospects for treatment.
Justice is rendered ineffective in the absence of force. Despotism is the absence of justice in
power, as stated by Penez Pascal. Sometimes, justice itself is accompanied by pain, as
demonstrated by Sophocles in Electra77.

Injustice anywhere poses a menace to justice everywhere—Martin Luther King

The concept of lawsuits in India was in its inception and was perceived as a private
endeavour of private vested interests until the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, the majority of
litigation were initiated and pursued by specific individuals, typically in response to their own
grievances or concerns. The victim or injured party is therefore entitled to initiate as well as
continue the proceedings. Even these are significantly restricted by the resources at their
disposal. There is no organized effort or endeavour to address a diverse array of issues that
affect the public or consumers. Nevertheless, the 1980s transformed the entire situation, with

77
Tobias, C.W. (1989). Public Law Litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cornell law review/˜The
œCornell law quarterly, 74(2), pp.270–346.

123
the Supreme Court of India spearheading the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The
Supreme Court of India has incorporated a broad public interest perspective in its work and
has provided quicker routes for every person in India, as well as newly formed consumer
groups or social action groups.

What is the possibility of human rights obligations to accomplish social transformation

through the law? Can public interest litigation contribute to the attainment of more
sustainable and equitable social development outcomes? Public interest litigation has been
suggested as a strategy that influences social policies in various sectors, including health,
environment, housing, land, education, and gender, in an increasing number of countries.
Activists perceive it as a feeble voice that can be communicated to the legal and political
system, and it serves as a mechanism for the state to respond and clarify its rights more
promptly. International non-governmental organizations and connections are experts in
particular areas of lawsuits classification, where they initiate and support litigation on a
global scale. Donors also advocate for public interest litigation and push it to be implemented
as a strategy in least developed countries. This, in turn, serves as a source of inspiration and
drive for local NGOs and activists who do not participate in public interest litigation.

Activists and donors have unexpectedly trusted in this trust in litigation, despite the fact that
academia has doubts about the efficacy of the courts in achieving change in society, even in
countries with well-functioning institutions and sound legal systems. This is particularly
accurate in light of the courts' deficiencies that are prevalent in numerous developing and
transitioning nations.

5.3. PIL PROS

1. Public interest litigation (PIL) provides alternative relief to Indian residents by allowing
them to obtain affordable legal remedies, as it only involves nominally fixed court fees.

2. Additionally, litigants can concentrate on and accomplish outcomes that are pertinent to
broader public concerns, particularly those related to the environment, consumer welfare, and
human rights, through litigation known as "public interest litigation."

124
Misuse of Public Interest Litigation

However, the hazards and disadvantages of PIL are also evident in its growth and
development. As a result, the Supreme Court of law is obligated to establish specific
guidelines to regulate the administration and resolution of public interest litigation.

Abuse is on the rise as a result of the pervasive use of PIL. A number of PIL activists in the
country have recently discovered that PIL is a useful harassment tool. This is due to the fact
that trivial cases can be filed when needed by private civil lawsuits without the need to invest
in high court expenses. These cases can then be pursued with the victims of PIL suspension
negotiation.

The command that was acquired in PIL. The standard requirements of a legal standing are
also lowered, which transforms privately determined interests into public interests, just as
weapons used for defense can also be effectively used for crime. The misuse of PIL has
become more unfettered than its use, and the true reason is to return to the background or
begin to suspect an incorrect cause created by the disguise of privately determined purposes
into the so-called public interests78.

The actuary's examination duty and the law statute are community matters that are only
activated when a person with a genuine public interest initiates jurisdiction.

In the legal library, public interest litigation is a potent tool for achieving the justice of civil
society. This phenomenon is unprecedented in the world and is of significant importance in
contemporary legal matters. It is a distinctive feature of the Indian Constitution. This skill is
associated with the safeguarding of the interests of an individual or a group of individuals
who are either victims of governmental infractions, victims of social oppression, or captives
of their fundamental or legal rights, and who lack the right to seek redress in court.
Dissatisfied with inadequate resources, ignorance, or an underprivileged economic and social
standing.

Nevertheless, petitions have been submitted in an effort to select PIL for personal, political,
or corporate gain. Our judicial stance will impede this undemocratic, preposterous, and
perilous trend. Former Chief Justice A. S. Anand expressed caution regarding the excessive
use of public interest litigation (PIL) and underscored the necessity of exercising caution to
ensure that it remains primarily an action in the public interest and does not become a
78
Barsoum, G., Lytton, T.D., Vernick, J. and Isaacs, C. (2004). The Pros and Cons of Litigation in Public Health.
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32(S4), pp.42–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2004.tb00183.x.

125
political or private inquiry. In numerous instances, courts are required to prevent legislators
and other individuals from exploiting their procedures to postpone legitimate political
objectives. In the words of Krishna Iyer J, disclose the evolution of public interest litigation
over the past two decades:

`The rival of the poor usurped this universal procedure, and even belittled public interest
lawsuits, rendering it contemptible. Misuse of PIL and this strategy79.

These trends demonstrate that it is acceptable to employ PIL as an all-encompassing remedy

or distraction for critical research, as a magic drug or gratis formal treatment.

Public interest litigation encompasses numerous forms of abuse. Their abuse may be
motivated by propaganda, private interests, political competition, or other favored
motivations. The tragedy is that it impedes the functioning of the judicial delivery system.
However, it is impossible to establish a consistent jurisprudence in order to prevent abuse,
despite the necessity of a spirit of restraint. The petitioner's severity and his status as an
advocate for the person or organization or occupation of which he is a representative are the
most critical issues that the court must address in the PIL case. The efficacy of public interest
litigation should extend beyond the scope of the parties involved in the lawsuit. It is
important to acknowledge that public interest litigation must be accompanied by appropriate
judicial control to prevent the use of this skill as a weapon for extortion or other
inflammatory motivations.

Any annoyance the use of public interest litigation in defense of any person's complaint in
court must be quashed. It is important to emphasize that a written petitioner who is appealing
to the court in the public interest must possess a clean heart, pure mind, and virtuous
objective, in addition to maintaining clean hands, as is required of any other petitioner. The
Indian Law Commission has proposed a Code of Conduct to regulate India's PIL cases while
monitoring abuse. The PIL Law Bill was promulgated multiple times to govern the Court's
Jurisdiction Law Bill, which explicitly specifies the legal strong sections of the legal
standing, following 1993 and 1996. Additionally, our Supreme Court promulgated regulations
regarding public interest litigation (PIL).

79
Rabin, R.L. (1976). Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law. Stanford Law Review,
28(2), p.207. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1228120.

126
Judge Arjith Pasayat reaffirmed his contention in a series of on-PIL cases, such as the Ashok
Kumar v/s. State of W.B. PIL, that the PIL is not intended to enhance political performance or
profit. The court must satisfy specific criteria in order to approve public interest litigation.

Criticism of Public Interest Litigation: There are numerous legal scholars who have critiqued
PIL; however, one of the primary critiques presented here is Public Interest Litigation:
Motivate the filing of defamatory, fictitious, and unreasonable claims and the improper use of
the judiciary through unreasonable litigation.

Proves that governance is impossible, and sloth is a pathology. In the PIL, the court of law
presided over the conflict between the political department of the state judicial authority and
the political section of the judicial authority. It is striving to undermine the notion of
separation of powers.

5.4. PIL CONS

In recent years, public interest litigation has been filed for a variety of issues, in addition to
violations of fundamental rights. For instance, the judiciary addresses a variety of issues, such
as the deterioration of rocks, the threat posed by oil refineries to the Taj Mahal, river
pollution, industrial sends outside Delhi, food shortages, and hunger. The Delhi bus employs
sustainable fuel and traffic laws, and the government irrationally allocates public housing.
Additionally, the judiciary examines access to employment, employment, children, and safety
rights for children suspected of paying hazardous industries. The judiciary also explores the
right to occur, the right to health, the right to education, the right to harassing women in work
environments, and female murders and infanticides via modern technology80.

The Supreme Court dismissed these cases not due to their validity as PILs, but rather because
the justices arrived at logical conclusions. PIL additionally brought a lawsuit in the Supreme
Court, requesting that the publication of "obscene" and "nude" photographs in newspapers be
prohibited. In court, certain lawyers who were referred to as "public spirit lawyers" raised
objections:

(i) Richard publicly embraces Indian star MS. Shetty.

80
Percival, R.V. and Miller, G.P. (1984). The Role of Attorney Fee Shifting in Public Interest Litigation. Law
and Contemporary Problems, 47(1), p.233. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1191442.

127
(ii) alleged obscene live performances on New Year's Eve; and

(iii) In order to surmount certain astrological challenges in marriage, Aishwarya Rai, a former
Miss World, wedded a tree.

Nevertheless, the advancement of PIL also revealed its advantages and disadvantages.
Consequently, the Supreme Court was compelled to establish specific guidelines to regulate
the administration and resolution of public interest litigation. Abuse is on the rise as a result
of the pervasive and multifaceted use of PIL81.

Many PIL activists across the nation recently learned that PIL is a convenient harassment
tool. This is due to the fact that trivial cases can be filed untouched by paying a significant
court of law fee, when needed by private civil lawsuits. These cases can then be implemented
with the victims of PIL for negotiation, resulting in the injection of irrelevant PILs. This is
similar to how weapons for protection can be used similarly for crime, due to the lower
procedural standards of the traditional legal system. Consequently, privately motivated
interests are transformed into public interests. The misuse of PIL has become more
unregulated than its utilization, its true rationale has been obscured, or it was thought that
private interests have been repurposed as "public" ones.

An illustration of this is the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Federation of India.

Due to fraudulent applications and the desire to protect the general welfare of litigants, the
apex judiciary of India was despondent and referred to as "public interest litigation." Despite
the fact that the court issued a series of convincing judgments on the value and significance
of this newly developed PIL concept, they all overemphasized their orders. However, the
court also promptly issued red warnings and severe warnings. Emphasize that the court ought
to prevent individuals who are self-important, malicious, intruders, or meddlers to abuse its
processes. Other than their own private objectives or other favourable considerations, the
intervener has no other interests or concerns.

In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. West Bengal, the Hon’ble Court clarified that an application in the
form of a public interest lawsuit may be triggered if there is evidence that it is solely a
disguise. We believe that it is imperative to address the public interest issues prior to
addressing the issues at hand in this case.

81
Dawson, J.P. (1975). Lawyers and Involuntary Clients in Public Interest Litigation. Harvard Law Review,
88(5), p.849. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1340143.

128
Propaganda interest litigation, private interest litigation, political interest litigation, or the
most recent trend, penny income litigation, should not be included in the public interest
litigation that now plays a significant role in legal management. If it is not prevented from
being mishandled and abused, it will also serve as an instrument for criminals to release,
similar to vendettas and retaliation. The lawsuit must be rooted in genuine, unadulterated
public interest, rather than merely a quest for adventure or the demand for an intentionally
flawed investigation into government matters. A person or group of people cannot claim that
they are promoting themselves or satisfying their personal resentment and animosity by citing
a personal reason.

Challenges associated with the application of judicial activism (Judicial ACTIVISM) in

public interest litigation:

The abuse of PIL in India appears to have reached a point where it is beginning to undermine
the purpose of its introduction, which occurred in the 1990s. In other terms, the black side of
the PIL is gradually obscuring the white side82.

With ulterior motives, the term "public" has been substituted with "private" or "publicity" in
the context of public interest litigation. The public interest is one of the primary reasons that
courts support PIL. Even so, it is uncertain whether PIL remains dedicated to accomplishing
this objective. Almost all issues are presented to court in the name of public interest, as
previously mentioned, due to the appeals procedure of public interest litigation law, which is
characterized by its high impact, rapid response, and low cost. Of course, it is not always
straightforward to differentiate between public and private interests; however, the court's
failure to rigorously implement public interest litigation in order to safeguard the public
interest is a contentious issue. PIL is abused by individuals who instigate private complaints
and seek exposure, rather than arguing for charitable causes or utilities, as confirmed by
Desai and Muralidhar. It is imperative that the courts refrain from permitting individuals to be
replaced with private or advertising in PIL.

2. Inefficient utilization of restricted judicial resources: If implemented effectively, public

interest litigation (PIL) may facilitate the resolution of grievances. However, it is perplexing
that the courts have not taken sufficient measures to prevent unreasonable PIL cases, given
that India has a significantly lower number of judges per person than many other countries
82
Hall, P.A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in
Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), pp.275–296.

129
and the substantial backlog of cases that the Supreme and High Courts in India are currently
facing. In reality, the judiciary may infringe upon the right to a rapid trial of a person who
waits for his private interest in an ordinary confrontational proceeding by permitting an
intelligent PIL plaintiff to squander time and effort. The court has also spent an excessive
amount of time processing PIL cases, which is a related issue. This may result in numerous
significant judgments that are solely academic in nature. The fact that the court required years
to fix the case may also suggest that the court is not the most appropriate location to manage
PIL cases.

3. Juridical populism: Jurists are Homo-sapient; however, it would be regrettable if judges

allowed public interest litigation cases in society, as they may become famous for an
unreasonable social issue (otherwise, it could become a common problem). In contrast, the
aspiration to become a social judge in a democratic nation should not preclude the adoption
of public interest litigation involving significant public interests, despite the potential for
unpopularity. The apprehension of judiciary populism is not merely academic; it is evident in
the form of observations. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

The court is not elected by the people and is not subject to their oversight, as is the case with
the House of Representatives in India. However, if the emphasis of judicial review is
redirected from the numerous concepts of minority protection to the compassionate notion of
protecting vulnerable groups, it will achieve enduring status and bolster its moral authority in
society.
Some individuals believe that the court should refrain from recognizing it as a crusader in the
context of constitutional democracy; however, this attempt was unsuccessful. They are unable
to achieve their objective or wield any authority83.

4. Symbolic justice: Another significant issue with India's PIL endeavour is that PIL cases
typically only achieve symbolic justice. Here, two aspects of this issue can be identified.
Initially, the judiciary is frequently unable to guarantee that its rules or directions in PIL cases
are followed, such as the police arrest procedure (D.K. Basu case) or sexual assault in the
workplace (Vishaka case374). It is undeniable that additional empirical research is required to
examine the extent of adherence and the discrepancies between Supreme Court guidelines.
Nevertheless, it seems that judicial intervention in these cases has not made significant

83
Schacter, J.S. (2018). Putting the Politics of ‘Judicial Activism’ in Historical Perspective. The Supreme Court
Review, 2017(1), pp.209–272. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/697196.

130
progress in reducing the atrocities committed by the police in the context of arrest and
detention and combating sexual harassment of women. As a second illustration of symbolic
justice, the excessive conversion of DPSPs to FRs renders them ineffective, rendering them
legitimate. The recognition of a right that cannot be implemented or fulfilled does not provide
significant benefits.

Controversially, the concept of rights is reduced to a trump card by the creation of a right that
cannot be enforced. It was correctly noted that judges may incorporate the right to life, which
includes the right to sustenance, education, health, residence, and certain social rights,
without establishing the precise responsibility and the method by which the duty to provide
favourable social welfare is enforced. Consequently, PIL initiatives could deceive vulnerable
groups in society by leading them to believe that they have been treated fairly when in reality,
their circumstances have not been significantly altered.

5. The Indian Constitution is undermined by the violation of separation of powers.

Despite the fact that the Indian Constitution does not adhere to the principle of separation of
powers in its entirety, it still embodies the power source principle of balance of powers, and
the judiciary is required to uphold it. Nevertheless, the judiciary has failed to exercise self-
restraint on numerous occasions, instead opting to legislate in order to address policy
concerns and assume responsibility for governance or the supervision of implementation
agencies. Professor M. P. Jain is apprehensive about this trend376: Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) is a weapon that must be employed with utmost care and caution; courts must be
mindful of the need to address public dissatisfaction, and PIL will not infringe upon the
authority of constitutionally approved institutions and legislatures84.

Additionally, there is a lack of consistency, as the Supreme Court will occasionally intervene
in policy matters without hesitation, while in other instances, it will remain concealed under
the guise of policy issues. The judicial department stepped in to address sexual harassment
and assault in detention, as well as to regulate the adoption of children by foreigners.
However, it did not intervene to establish a Uniform Civil Law to combat the behaviour of
educational institutions and adjust their height. This is merely to clarify. The Narmada Dam
presents a humane façade for the reduction of liberalized investment policies. Such selective
intervention in judicial decisions lacks a clear or solid theoretical foundation.

84
Bumin, K.M. (2017). Judicial Institutionalization and Judicial Activism of the Post-Communist Constitutional
Courts. Journal of Politics and Law, 10(2), p.54. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v10n2p54.

131
It is also believed that the judiciary has (or will be able to) enhance the transparency of the
other two branches of government through PIL. In reality, the situation may be quite the
opposite: the judicial usurpation of administrative and legislative functions may result in
these institutions becoming even more irresponsible, as they are aware that the courts will
always intervene if they fail to take measures.

Excessive abuse: PIL should not be the initial stage in resolving complaints, even if it
represents the public interest. PIL should not be reduced to a routine, as it is not regarded
seriously by the masses, bar associations, or workbenches, in order to preserve its
effectiveness. The original content may be diluted by the excessive use of PIL for any
conceivable public interest. It will be a death knell if only civil society and those with
vulnerabilities lose faith in the efficacy of PIL85.

In order to guarantee that the integrity of judicial activities in the country remains intact while
tackling the interests of all stakeholders in a wise and appropriate manner, the judiciary must
design and implement specific solutions based on these issues.

Suggestions for rectifying the excessively energetic judiciary

Significant measures must be implemented to prevent the excessively activist judiciary from
crossing the frontier. Certain of them may be explicated as follows: India's Supreme Court
and High Courts have established public interest litigation (PIL) as a critical component of
their jurisdiction.
While its efficacy and necessity in upholding the rule of law are undeniable, the courts
occasionally overuse it and fail to adhere to principles, resulting in contention in public
interest litigation.
1. Calming must be procedural.

It is possible to prevent numerous abuses of PIL jurisdiction by recalling that PIL is

fundamentally a viable solution to the principles of legal review by courts for governments
and public authorities, and that the court's modifications permit the use of petitioners. The
appellant made an appeal to the judge on behalf of others who were unable to appear in
person because of their lack of awareness of their rights or the complexity and expense of the
proceedings. The court in this instance waived the stringent regulations of the traditional

85
Kmiec, K.D. (2004b). The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism’. California Law Review, 92(5),
p.1441. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3481421.

132
court system in relation to the applicant's petition and the legal formalities. It is capable of
accepting correspondence from the person complaining to the court. The objective of public
interest litigation is to rectify the fundamental rights of impoverished and marginalized
communities in society, who are unable to depend on judicial aid alone.

It is also important to remember that public interest litigation is not exclusive to India. Public
interest litigation is also present in other jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada,
and South Africa, although they are not explicitly described. Consequently, it is imperative to
acknowledge that the jurisdiction of the PIL should not exceed the bounds set by judicial
review of the conduct or omissions of the government, legislature, or public bodies, or the
actions or failures mandated by the Constitutional parameter authority, in addition to
procedural easing.
The conventional procedure of parliamentary autonomy cannot be replaced by judicial review
in a democratic constitution86.

The choices and policies of the people's representatives may not be ideal or proper in such
procedures, but they can be established by the people themselves. The court is unable to
undertake judicial review due to the fact that it is a definition of a public interest lawsuit.
Consequently, PIL competence is not the sole jurisdiction, and the court has the authority to
exceed its boundaries and employ it as a mechanism for the government to implement
corrective action that is deemed inappropriate or that can be enhanced. Upon recalling this
fundamental foundation, it is effortless to eliminate PIL intervention parameters and prevent
abuse.

2. Legal activism is not a public interest law (PIL):

Another misperception is the association of PIL with India's judicial activism. Legal activism
is not a public interest litigation. The court is legally valid or invalid, irrespective of the PIL.
Judicial activism is of immense importance.

Bacon's assertion that judges can only proclaim laws, not form them, is no longer endorsed
by anyone. The esteemed British judge Lord Reid accurately characterized this perspective as
a fairy tale. He stated, "Judges are required to establish laws; however, they are unable to do
so in the form of legislation." Creative jurisprudence has a significant amount of room for
judges to exercise their interpretive function, the inherent choice of their functions, and the
86
Cassels, J. (1989b). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible? The
American Journal of Comparative Law, 37(3), p.495. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/840090.

133
voids in legal rules, as many high courts in numerous countries have done for many years.
The judicial function could be creative, as the Supreme Court of India described the
immutability of the basic structure of the 1973 Constitution and the non-arbitrariness of the
fundamental right to equality in the Maneka Gandhi case of 1978. Additionally, the court
introduced due process to explain personal liberty. It is unfortunate that the creative judiciary
of Indian courts has been stalled and displaced, and its substitutes are insufficient to replace
traditional judicial adjustments and the supervision of government functions by PILs.

The primary reason that judicial activism is equivalent to PIL is that it is the most expedient
method for filing a public complaint with the court, and the court's order in PIL is often
sensational and far-reaching. After the court conducts PIL jurisdiction, this judicial process is
particularly beneficial for the public, particularly the impoverished, disadvantaged, and
marginalized groups, whose fundamental rights should be safeguarded by court orders, in
light of these fundamental principles of judicial review. The court has a historical and
constitutional obligation to uphold and enforce the fundamental freedoms of the individual.
The court is most potent and less vulnerable when it employs its actions to exercise its
fundamental rights as a citizen against the Executive87.

3. Judicial Activism, not Judicial Adventurism

PIL was initiated by the court's unconventional intervention in 1970, which resulted in the
freeing of incarcerated workers and the suspension of inhumane working conditions,
including those found in mental hospitals and quarries. The jurisdiction should be
appropriately referred to as SAL or social action in order to identify its true significance. The
court is legally obligated to enforce the law, not solely when it is violated, but also when it
disregards the severe repercussions of the law for the public. In such instances, the court will
refrain from addressing matters that are not within its jurisdiction. The court may take swift
corrective action in environmental matters if the authorities' actions are not immediately
corrected. However, it is not permitted to take over the government or replace the law, as this
could result in irreparable harm. Nevertheless, the original vision of the PIL has been

87
Gullett, G., Scott, A.F., Wedell, M., Frankel, N. and Dye, N.S. (1993). A Contest over Meaning: Finding
Gender, Class, and Race in Progressivism. History of Education Quarterly, 33(2), p.233.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/368343.

134
forgotten over time, and it is now regarded as general jurisdiction to remedy government
actions or omissions, and it is not subjected to the traditional principles of judicial review 88.

Because the court is unable to disregard the law in judicial review, nor can it disregard the
fundamental separation between the basic powers awarded by the Constitution and
appropriate managerial abilities or legislative powers, the PIL Order is unable to disregard the
law. In order to enhance governance or prevent the abuse of power, the government or the
agency assumed control of the executive branch. In the Aravalli Golf Club case, two Supreme
Court judges recently issued a strong critique of laissez-faire justice in this regard. The
verdict was opportune, which drew attention to the incorrect judicial activism; however, it
failed to establish the extent of judicial intervention.

In order to comprehend the potential of litigation to effect social change, it is crucial to first
comprehend the validity of the criticism that is directed at it, which concentrates on the use of
litigation separately from the broader social and political movement. The dialogue between
PIL and legal strategies that should be used in combination with other strategies and how to
transform change in broader sociopolitical strategies will be provided through comprehension
of the dangers of seeing PIL as a tool to accomplish social change in isolation.

Major social transformations cannot be achieved through litigation alone.

A frequent criticism of public interest lawsuit is that the litigation itself will not result in the
reform of social structures or practices. The actual changes in hopes are explained by legal
ideas and arguments, which may result in elimination of the actual changes sought.
Furthermore, the initial demands may not be fulfilled and might not be automatically
implemented, even if judicial remedies are approved. One example of a litigation for unmet
change is the case of Government of the Republic of South Africa and others v/s. Grootboom
and Others 2001 (1) SA (CC). The Grootboom community was forcibly displaced from their
residences, which were constructed on private property. The government neglected to fulfill
its obligation to construct affordable housing for them, despite the municipality's assurance.
Consequently, community attorneys filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that the court issue an
order requiring the municipality in question to provide the community with a sufficient basic
temporary shelter and/or housing according with the Constitutional housing rights.
Ultimately, the Constitutional Court declined to issue an order compelling the government to
88
Chowdhury, N. (2014). From judicial activism to adventurism - the Godavarman case in the supreme court of
India. Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, 17, p.177.

135
provide temporary lodging. Rather, it issued a declarative order that mandated the
government's housing strategy to flout its constitutional obligations in order to provide
accommodation to the most vulnerable members of society. The plaintiff stayed in the same
substandard conditions for a number of years following the verdict.

The direct impact on the Grootboom community is limited, despite the potential for
Grootboom's decision to have a broad impact on the fairness of the rights to housing in the
Constitution. The limitation of judicial remedy is one of the primary issues associated with
relying on litigation relief. In this instance, declarative mandates are insufficient to motivate
the government to enhance the living conditions of the Grootboom community89.

Social movements may be coopted by lawyers and legal strategies.

One of the more pernicious criticisms of PIL is that it may actually be detrimental to the
objectives of social movements, in addition to highlighting its ineffectiveness. Some scholars
have noted that the social reform agenda's influence is derived from political actions,
including mobilization and organization.

This political action can be converted into modifications to the law, which are considered
more reasonable legislation and can result in longer-term changes than those made by the
courts.

Legal appointment poses a threat in the legal profession. The primary objective of this
procedure is to implement legal reform. It detracts attention from better and more
transformative choices, removes the basis of the agenda, perpetuates injustices, and narrows
the causes. Consequently, this procedure may actually undermine social movements by
requiring them to resort to lawsuits and reform through the courts. This threat has been
repeatedly recognized by the public, particularly in the aftermath of the establishment of
unilateral relationships between lawyers and social reform organizations.

In principle, public-interest groups and social welfare groups can complement one another.
Nonprofit organizations have the potential to increase awareness and promote an
understanding of legal rights and the law. This knowledge can be beneficial for public
education, demonstrations, campaigning, and awareness. Legal advocacy groups may obtain

89
Rabin, R.L. (1976b). Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law. Stanford Law Review,
28(2), p.207. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1228120.

136
information regarding community-related concerns and issues from non-legal organizations.
In reality, human rights defenders depend on legal advocacy in numerous capacities,
including (1) as a source of legal expertise, (2) to assist voters through lawsuits, (3) to
provide public education on significant lawsuits, (4) to assist in the mobilization of members,
particularly in the context of the litigation movement, and (5) to conduct schooling on
legitimate freedoms and rights and foster self-esteem among members90.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that legal advocacy organizations typically do

not seek assistance or guidance from their non-legal counterparts in these relationships.

This results in the conviction that legal representation organizations operate entirely
independently of the movement. Furthermore, the assets of legal advocacy organizations can
contribute to the public's comprehension of these organizations.

Movements that are dominant in terms of scale, sophistication, and visibility. This unbalanced
dynamic has resulted in legal strategies that are not in alignment with political and legislative
strategies, and it has questioned the constitutionality of litigation companies in accurately
representing various constituents in election campaigns.

5.5. ABUSE OF PIL

It is intriguing that the improper use or abuse of PIL is becoming a significant issue in India,
where the amount of pending court cases is already substantial.

Eventually, the Supreme Court devised guidelines for the court to follow in order to accept
public interest litigation, after conducting a thorough review of trivial public interest
litigation petitions for private or external reasons in 2010.

A panel of judges, including Judge Dalveer Bhandari and Judge Mukundakam Sharma, stated
that the justice system has been subjected to a superfluous amount of pressure as a result of
the indiscriminate petitions. This has resulted in significant delays in the processing of
genuine and legitimate cases91.

90
McCann, M. (2006). Law and Social Movements: Contemporary Perspectives. Annual Review of Law and
Social Science, 2(1), pp.17–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105917.
91
Dr. Ganesh Dubey and Niharika Vyas (2021). Misuse Of Public Interest Litigation: A Critical Study As How It
Is A Major Threat To Judiciary. Legal Research Development, 6(I), pp.21–26.
doi:https://doi.org/10.53724/lrd/v6n1.05.

137
Judge Bhandari stated in the judgments that the court's contribution to aiding the poorest
class of society by safeguarding the environment, ecology, and forests through the updated
definition of life and freedom is of significant importance. He also emphasized the
importance of tracing the origin and development of the lawsuits in various countries that
infringed the origin of the land. The judge expressed regret that the court has recently filed a
number of petitions with oblique motives, blatantly violating this crucial jurisdiction, and has
meticulously planned, developed, and nurtured it.

5.6. DIRECTIVES REGARDING THE MISUSE OF PIL:

It has been discovered that the number of cases of PIL exploitation has reached its peak.
Consequently, the Supreme Court has taken a strong stance on this issue and has established
guidelines that all subordinate courts must adhere to before approving PIL requests. The
following are the guidelines:

1. The PIL should be genuine, reasonable, and truthful.

2. Each high court should establish regulations to promote genuine public interest litigation
and prevent public interest litigation with malign intent.

3. The court should initially evaluate the content of the PIL before proceeding.

4. The court must be pleased with the quality of the PIL prior to adopting it.

5. The court should also guarantee that public interest litigation is conducted before it
involves the public or private interest.

6. The court shall prioritize public interest litigations that generate significant public interest,
urgency, and gravity over other public interest litigations.

7. The court ought to additionally ensure that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not
motivated by personal gain and that it addresses genuine public damage.

8. The court should also ensure that the PIL is not entertained and is nullified with a fee, as it
is motivated by ulterior motives.

The use and abuse of litigation in the public interest have been the subject of serious concern
in recent years, and those issues have been voiced at all levels. I believe it is necessary to

138
conduct a thorough examination of the misuse of public interest lawsuits. PIL has been
exploited in numerous instances throughout legal history. Similar to Bihar in the case of
Shubhash Kumar v. Bihar. In this instance, the directors of the company terminated a
labourer, prompting him to file a complaint against them. He maintained that the company's
actions were unjust and that a trial should be conducted. This is the sole cause of PIL abuse,
as per the actual facts of this case. The same scenario is present in the case of S.P. Gupta v/s
U.O.I. Additionally, there are instances of abuse of PIL. In accordance with Sheela Barse v.
Maharashtra [[1983] 2 SCC 96]]: In this instance, the Supreme Court was informed by a
letter from the applicant, a journalist, that a female prisoner was subjected to lock-up abuse in
the Mumbai jail. The court issued a variety of instructions, such as the following92:

Four to five police detention centres should be chosen in a location that is reasonably safe.
These centres should be limited to female suspects and should be monitored by female police
officers. Abuse can manifest in a variety of ways. Initially, in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State
of W.B., it was defined as an individual who is pursuing pointless incentive or publicity from
the P.I.L., such as intruders, pedestrians, or despicable interferers. This form of lawsuit is
referred to as a propaganda interest lawsuit, and the court is rife with controversy.
What are alternative methods of describing a public interest lawsuit against relief, such as the
provision of private jets and special conveyance to the upper judicial branch? Lawyers who
are currently practicing in the Uttar Region have submitted a petition regarding this matter. It
is foreseeable that it was momentarily denied; however, the gentleman spent his days in the
sun, regardless. Numerous instances of such lawsuits exist. There were no incidents that did
not garner attention from the public, and there was rivalry to convert the matter into a PIL.

Judicial trends: Phase I: Locus Standi Rule relaxation.

The case of Bar Council Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar S.C. stated that, In adversarial
systems, it is customary to seek out victims. However, in developing countries such as ours,
new lawsuits have arisen that involve public interest litigation that affect the entire
community, such as consumer organizations or the NAACP. People may be concerned that
this expansion has legal implications, as the public-oriented litigation model is more effective
in establishing the rule of law when the rules of life are adhered to. Additionally, the public's
use of the courts to prevent hoaxes is a testament to the judicial system. Significance to the
92
Ravi, V. (2024). Public Interest Litigation. [online] Vajiram & Ravi. Available at:
https://vajiramandravi.com/quest-upsc-notes/public-interest-litigation/.

139
general public. It has the potential to reduce the number of litigations that may be filed, which
could potentially overwhelm judges.

The court in Mumbai, Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai, made a deliberate effort to enhance the
public's access to justice by loosening the traditional norms of legal litigation. The court
authorized community action in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, thereby departing from
conventional norms. In the Husseinara Khataon case, J.P.N. Bhagwati. It was stated that,
regrettably, the Indian judicial system is currently experiencing a lack of trust among the
impoverished due to its exorbitant cost. The law is designed to benefit the impoverished, not
the other way They consistently adhere to the law of the impoverished93.

Not the law of the impoverished. In the case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Government, a
prisoner complained to the magistrate about being compelled to wear handcuffs and
requesting covert protection, shame, and torture. By relaxing the stringent regulations of local
regular legal litigation, the law court provided the requisite instructions.

The Supreme Court acknowledged and emphasized the dangers of construction work in Salal
Hydro Project v. Jammu & Kashmir State, as evidenced by the Indian Express's reporting on
the status of construction workers. The Constitution must be enforced by the central
government, and children under the age of 14 are prohibited from participating in
construction initiatives.
The aforementioned cases demonstrate that the court has leniently applied the severe rules of
legal standing and has issued a series of instructions to the appropriate authorities, all while
safeguarding and preserving the fundamental rights of citizens.

The second phase is focused on the preservation and protection of the environment and
ecology.
The second stage of public interest litigation, which was associated with court innovation and
creativity, commenced in the 1980s. In this regard, the Court has established a course of
action for the protection of the environment and the environment.

A gasoline spill in Delhi was one of the Supreme Court's earliest cases. The court issued a
number of orders to prevent harm to the environment, human life, and health. The case of
MC Mehta v. Indian Union. The court explicitly stated in this case that factories that are
involved in dangerous or intrinsically dangerous industries should be operated in a manner

93
Rai, D. (2021). Abuse of the concept of PIL in recent years with examples of case laws . [online] iPleaders.
Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/abuse-of-the-concept-of-pil-in-recent-years-with-examples-of-case-laws/.

140
that is utterly unsafe for the communities surrounding the factories. This is due to the
potential threat they pose to the health and safety of workers. It is a strict obligation of the
establishment to society to ensure that no injury is caused to anyone as a result of the inherent
peril of the activity being performed.

Environmental public interest litigation has transpired as a consequence of the court's

interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti
v. State of U.P. Courts has ruled that, in accordance with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
every citizen has a fundamental right to protection and quality of life. The right to approach
U/A 32 of the Indian Constitution is granted to acts that endanger or impair anyone, which
includes any right to violate or undermine the quality of life and the standard of living of the
people94.

Phase III: Governance Transparency and Probity:

The Supreme Court further broadened the scope of public interest litigation in the 1990s. In
accordance with U/A 226, the High Court also submits to the Supreme Court and has issued
numerous judgments, orders, or instructions to prevent corruption and uphold the integrity
and morality of state governance. In order to facilitate effective management systems and
national development, governance integrity is essential. The absence of corruption is a critical
prerequisite for maintaining the integrity of governance. This is commonly referred to as the
third stage of public interest litigation. A number of significant orders have been issued by the
Supreme Court and the High Court.

Vineet Narain v. U.O.I. serves as an illustration. The petitioner filed a public interest litigation
in this instance in the capacity of a reporter. According to him, the Central Bureau of
Investigation and the Taxation Office, which are significant investigative agencies, neglected
to fulfil their legal obligations and take the necessary action due to the discovery of detailed
records of substantial payments during the terrorist investigation, termed Jain also seeks
advice from influential politicians and administrators to prevent the recurrence of similar
situations. Some directives were issued by the Supreme Court95.

94
Verschueren, H. (2016). Employment and Social Security Rights of Third-Country Labour Migrants under eu
Law: An Incomplete Patchwork of Legal Protection. European Journal of Migration and Law, 18(4), pp.373–
408. doi:https://doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12342107.
95
Drishtiias.com. (2023). Practice. [online] Available at:
https://www.drishtiias.com/mains-practice-question/question-7890/pnt [Accessed 3 Nov. 2024].

141
Another significant case is Rajiv Ranjan Singh (Lalan) v. Indian Federation. The litigation,
which was conducted in the public interest, involved the Ministry of Animal Husbandry's
significant abuse of public funds and the forgery of accounts involving hundreds of billions
of rupees. The public prosecutor's appointment is purportedly the subject of the accused's
interference. In this instance, the court issued pertinent instructions. The Taj Mahal Heritage
Corridor initiative is an initiative that the Uttar Pradesh government has initiated in the case
of MC Mehta v. U.O.I. One of the primary objectives of this project is to redirect the Yamuna
River and reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and Taj Mahal. The reclaimed land is
utilized for food plazas, stores, and entertainment venues. According to the court, the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was mandated to conduct an exhaustive investigation. The
court directed the FIR to conduct additional registration and investigation, as indicated in the
CBI report. The court questioned the participation of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the Minister of Environment. The initiative was terminated
as a result of court intervention. The petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation Centre V.
Union of India filed two writ petitions in the public interest, urging the government to
transfer the majority stakes in Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum to the private
sector. Inquire. In the absence of sanctions or parliamentary assent The ESSO (Acquisition of
Undertaking in India) Act 1974 and the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India)
Act 1976 have been violated and slandered by political parties. The petition was maintained
by the court until the regulations were amended as necessary.

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

"Justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny." - Pascal in Pensees
Public interest litigation is now an established legal mechanism of the Supreme Court of
India and the High Court of India, without a doubt. Its significance has been extended to the
entire nation. Almost all segments of society, communities, and regions have been affected by
these petitions and court orders, which have addressed issues of public importance. Access to
justice is enhanced by public interest litigation instruments. It introduces novel challenges to
the judicial system. The scope of rights acknowledged in the Constitution is enlarged and
clarified by this mechanism. The mechanism offers a method to investigate the operation of
the legal system and evaluate its influence on access to justice, thereby facilitating the
142
evaluation of the viability of public interest litigation as a mechanism for resolving injustices.
It offers a fundamental understanding of the plight of human rights activists, regardless of
whether they are advocating for reform or revolution.
The initial struggle between the legislature and the judiciary did not resolve the issue of
poverty; rather, it reflected a contrary perspective on the government's main issues,
prompting Jawaharlal Nehru to refer to the court as the Third House.

The structure of the colonial state determined the parameters of the initial discussion on the
judiciary, which resulted in numerous constitutional amendments and the manipulation of
judicial appointments96. Subsequently, in the 1970s, social, political, and legal factors
coalesced to ensure that all individuals had access to justice. Furthermore, the promotion of
human rights law may be facilitated by international influence. Subsequently, the judiciary,
legal professionals, and the media have collaborated with political and social activists to
realize the potential of previously dormant activities within legal institutions and the law.
Public Interest Litigation was the outcome of these endeavours.
In fact, this Public Interest Litigation strategy was developed to ensure that a large number of
individuals who are deprived of their fundamental human rights have access to justice.
It enables individuals to have their voices heard in the judicial system. The Supreme Court
and various High Courts are innovating this remedy from Articles 32 and 226 in order to
address the grievances of impoverished and oppressed individuals in society, as the laws of
India does not contain any specific provision for this remedy. The judges are the primary
innovators of this form of litigation, as they have introduced the concept of judicial activism.
This has created new opportunities to bring justice closer to the average person.
Traditional features of judicial procedures have been altered by public interest litigation. This
is the outcome of judicial activism. The immediate discussion of judicial activism serves as a
reminder of the advancements in public interest litigation.

Judicial activism is the catalyst for public interest litigation. Judicial activism is inextricably
linked with public interest litigation. The Supreme Court's justice and judicial activism have
resulted in the dominance of judges in public interest litigation in India, and to a certain
extent, their instigation.383 The judiciary's most potent instrument is the power of judicial
review, which can safeguard the basic liberties of humanity from the effects of legislative and

96
Bennett, L. and Flanagan, D. (2016). Measuring the impact of digitized theses: a case study from the London
School of Economics. Insights the UKSG journal, 29(2), pp.111–119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.300.

143
administrative tyranny. Consequently, the expanding purview of review has resulted in the
positive trend of simplification that is public interest litigation.384 The courts have
implemented a novel approach to the enforcement of social rights in order to achieve justice.
This approach frequently necessitates the State's active involvement. In this manner, the
judiciary and justices fulfil the promise of exceptional individuals97.

It has been accurately noted that India's service entails the assistance of millions of
individuals who are experiencing hardship. It entails the eradication of poverty, ignorance,
disease, and unequal opportunities.
Removing the fluids from each eye. That may be beyond our capabilities; however, as long as
we have tears and pain, our labour will not conclude.
The Supreme Court has created a novel public interest litigation instrument for regulating
society through judicial action, which is designed to guarantee that the state or public
authority is accountable to the people. In a parliamentary democracy, the legislature is the
entity to which the government is accountable; however, the courts have recently established
the government's accountability to the populace.

Judicial creativity and judicial review have been demonstrated to be among the most effective
methods of promoting social justice. A comprehensive comprehension of the doctrine's origin
and development in the United States is essential for comprehending its real scope. The
landmark verdict rendered by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. This
epoch in the life of the Republic has been characterized by a firm doctrine of judicial review
of legislative action, as the United States has clearly defined it in the United States. Marshall
C.J. established the doctrine on a solid foundation and didn't turn back. The court has
consistently exercised this power without hesitation since that time, which has also expedited
the tempo of socio-economic advancement. Nevertheless, power has been employed to halt it
on occasion. Nine judicial signatures for slavery in the case of Dred Scott were a stigma to
civilization. The Missouri compromise was subsequently invalidated by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which was chaired by Roger B. Taney C.J. The court declared that the slaves were not
citizens and were therefore unable to file a lawsuit. It was the most catastrophic decision ever
made.

97
Deswal, M. and Singh, S. (2023). Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Public Interest Litigation in India.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 12(12), pp.1058–1065.
doi:https://doi.org/10.21275/sr231129120704.

144
Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court issued a contrasting decision in Brown v. Board of
Education,389 which condemned the segregated education of blacks and whites as entirely
unjust. This decision was rendered a century later.
This was the pinnacle of the new generation of justices' exercise of power with legal self-
restraint.
In India, the process of societal development through Public Interest Litigation has been
fairly consistent, facilitated by judicial activism. The Court's desire to safeguard the
Fundamental Rights of the populace and to regulate the Directive Principles to a lesser extent
was evident in the case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairanjan98.

The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal and State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee, as well
as the State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and K. K. Kochunni v. State of Madras394, once
again presented a significant challenge to the government and parliament in the
implementation of socio-economic programs for public welfare. The Court advocated for the
owner's property and ownership rights, as well as for fair and equitable compensation for the
losses suffered by the owner. The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, was enacted
as a result of these decisions. The 17th Amendment Act, 1966, was the result of the ongoing
conflict between the Judiciary and Parliament. The Supreme Court's previous stance of
preserving private property was reversed in the case of State of Gujarat v/s Shanti Lal Mangal
Das. However, the right to private property was upheld in the cases of Bank Nationalization
and Privy Purse.

Parliament subsequently enacted the 25th Amendment Act of 1971. At or around the time of
acquisition, the Supreme Court advocated for equitable compensation. This conflict persisted
until the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, when the Janta Party removed the right to property
from Part III of the Indian Constitution and relegated it to Article 300-A, thereby establishing
it as a constitutional right rather than a fundamental right. It is crucial to note that the
Fundamental Right had previously prevailed over the Directive Principles prior to the passage
of the 25th Amendment Act in 1971. By granting Articles 39(b) and (c) primacy over Articles
14, 19, and 31, Article 31 C attempted to modify the relationship at least partially. In the
Keshavnanda Bharti case, this portion of the aforementioned Amendment was upheld as
legitimate. Ninety-eight It was determined that the court would be required to investigate

98
Tushnet, M. (1999). The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law. The Yale Law Journal, 108(6),
p.1225. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/797327.

145
whether the challenged law truly accomplished the objective outlined in Article 39(b) and (c).
This approach of adhering to the prevailing requirements and spirit of the era was
implemented in the 1980s through Public Interest Litigation. Therefore, the Apex Court must
ensure that the nascent plant of Public Interest Litigation that the justices are planting is
nurtured to greater heights while conducting this extremely challenging, delicate, and delicate
task. In the Asiad Worker's case, Justice Bhagwati observed99:

To date, legal processes have been employed to uphold the rights of the affluent and the well-
being. The court's doors are now being opened to the impoverished and oppressed for the first
time.
It is challenging to predict the future of humanity; however, it is evident that the convergence
of all state instruments responsible for the implementation of directive principles would be a
significant force in the pursuit of equitable society in India through this new jurisprudence.
The accelerated development of the Public Interest Litigation mechanism in India has
resulted in the emergence of new procedural styles, the establishment of new rights, and the
provision of new remedies. Here are a few modifications that this instrument has
implemented:
The justices have initiated suo-moto interventions.
The Court's inventive authority has been activated.

Judicial activism, the constitution mandate, and access to justice have all been implicated.
The Court has established a novel form of jurisdiction in which newspaper headings and
letters addressed to the court are considered petitions. This term, "epistolary jurisdiction,"
was coined by Justice Krishna Iyer.
The Court has initiated the process of designating socio-legal commissions of inquiry.
Article 32's dimensions are evolving.

The Supreme Court and the High Courts are respectively granted the authority to issue
directions, orders, or writs in order to achieve the objectives of Articles 32 and 226,
respectively. The courts have issued directives for a variety of purposes that were previously
beyond their jurisdiction, using this creative approach of Public Interest Litigation to ensure
that the oppressed are compensated. This has facilitated the courts' enforcement of the basic

99
Baxi, U. (1979). People´s Law, Development, Justice. Verfassung in Recht und Übersee, 12(2), pp.97–114.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5771/0506-7286-1979-2-97.

146
liberties of a specific class of society, which are pursuing redress through the exercise of their
authority under these Articles100.

The apex court and the High Courts have been providing appropriate relief to individuals who
have been victims of the State's inaction for the past few decades, beginning with the Ratlam
case. Be it the case of flesh trade in the Protective Home of Agra, road and slum residents in
Bombay, payment of minimum wages and other advantages to workers in various state
projects, abolition of bonded labour, protection of the environment and ecology, and so forth,
the courts have taken cognizance of the issues and have stipulated the victims with suitable
remedies. This was only made feasible through the innovative application of the statute of
Public Interest Litigation.

The courts have issued directives for the appointment of committees or for the request that
the government implement a scheme. They may serve as explicit directives to the parties
regarding whether or not to execute a particular action. For instance, the directive in the Azad
Rickshaw Pullers case requested that the Punjab National Bank advance loans to the rickshaw
pullers and included a comprehensive repayment plan. The directives in Common Cause v.
UOI outlined the collection, storage, and distribution of blood for transfusion, as well as the
mitigation of potential risks associated with blood transfusion. The Supreme Court issued
directives regarding the education of children of prostitutes, the fee structure of private
medical or engineering colleges, the preparation of a housing scheme for pavement dwellers
or squatters, and the protection of the CBI from extraneous influences while carrying out
inquiries against individuals in high-ranking positions.

When contract labourers employed by the Food Corporation of India requested that the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 be extended to include them, the Court
instructed the relevant governments to establish committees under section 5 of the Act. These
committees were to conduct the requisite inquiries and submit reports regarding the abolition
of contract labour in the corporations. Forty-six The ape court's ruling in the Bandhua Mukti
Morcha case resulted in the release of a number of bonded laborers. Additionally, the
Haryana government was issued specific directives, and commissions were appointed to
monitor the implementation of these directions for the rehabilitation of the bonded labourers.
In addition, the court was informed in Neerja Chaudhary v. State of MP that the indentured

100
S P Sathe, “Freedom of Speech and Contempt of Court”

147
labourers who had been released were awaiting rehabilitation. Consequently, the court
established a Vigilance Committee to facilitate their rehabilitation. The apex court's orders
were effectively implemented as a result of similar public interest litigations filed in Madhya
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar. The government was directed by the Supreme Court in
Kishen v. State of Orissa, to implement measures to prevent starvation fatalities caused by
poverty. The Court issued these directives to the government in the form of specific decrees.
They were administrative in nature. This is the manner in which Public Interest Litigation has
facilitated the implementation of welfare laws to promote socio-economic justice in society.

Certain directives were legislative in nature. This is how the judiciary began to address the
lacunae or deficiencies of the legislature through Public Interest Litigation, thereby
legislating by providing guidance in areas where there was a gap in legislation or no law at all
to regulate activities that violated the fundamental rights of others 101. These directions were
issued in the framework of the authorities available under Article 32 for the enforcement of
fundamental rights and Article 142 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of ensuring
complete justice in cases where there is no or a lack of government policy by establishing the
parameters that meet the objects enumerated by any of the provisions of Part IV. This is also
underscored as the law that this Court has declared in accordance with Article 141 of the
Constitution. These directives are explicitly legislative and are binding on all subordinate
courts, governments, and social action organizations. These guidelines are intended to be
time-bound until legislative or executive actions are implemented. In Laxmikant Pandey v.
UOI, the Supreme Court exercised its authority by prescribing the procedures and precautions
that should be implemented when allowing Indian children to be taken in by foreign adoptive
parents.

In light of the potential for child trafficking for prostitution and slave labour, as well as the
absence of any legislation to regulate inter-country adoptions, the Supreme Court intervened
in the matter through Public Interest Litigation and established a comprehensive framework
for the regulation of both intra-country and inter-country adoptions. This lack of regulation
could result in irreparable harm to children in India. Subsequently, these directives have been
implemented to safeguard children and encourage adoptions that are desirable. There is

101
Baxi, U. (1979b). People´s Law, Development, Justice. Verfassung in Recht und Übersee, 12(2), pp.97–114.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5771/0506-7286-1979-2-97.

148
currently no exclusive legislation in place for this matter102.
The recommendations and norms for the appointment and transfer of judges were established
by a nine-member bench in Supreme-Court-Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. UOI. These
guidelines are being strictly adhered to in the appointments of High Court and Supreme Court
judges, as well as in the transfer of High Court judges.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court was requested to establish guidelines for
the successful enforcement of gender equality, which was jeopardized by the sexual
harassment of working women. The petitioners confronted the court in order to obtain
guidelines regarding the safeguarding of women from sexual harassment in the workplace.
The petition was heard by the court, and the guidelines were established. At that time, there
was no law on this subject, which is why the Supreme Court felt the need to address this
lacuna. Chief Justice Verma stated:

Both the legislature and the executive are responsible for the primary responsibility of
assuring safety and dignity through the establishment of a mechanism for its enforcement and
the implementation of appropriate legislation. Nevertheless, when instances of sexual
harassment that result in the violation of fundamental rights of women workers under articles
14, 19, and 21 are brought before us for remedies under article 32, an effective redressal
necessitates the establishment of some guidelines for the protection of those rights in order to
fill the legislative vacuum.

Therefore, the guidelines that were issued in these Public Interest Litigation cases were not
merely mandates; they are the law that will be applicable to all future cases of sexual
harassment of working women in government and semi-government services.
This is the manner in which Indian courts have recognized the violation of women's
fundamental rights and civil liberties, as well as the fact that women are the group most
subjugated by the legal system, the prevalent structure of society, and culture. The courts
have endeavoured to offer remedies that would not only address immediate concerns but also
establish a precedent for the future path of action that the judiciary will take when confronted
with the denial of rights of the typically ignored one-half of the population.

102
Doris, M.J. (2006). The Continued Resonance and Challenge of the ‘Ius Commune’ in Modern European
Contract Law. International Journal of Legal Information, 34(2), pp.391–418.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0731126500001530.

149
Public Interest Litigation is one of the instruments that has enabled the Supreme Court to
implement this shift in its approach. The Parliament has enacted the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which aims to
safeguard women from sexual harassment in the workplace, in accordance with these
guidelines. The Lok Sabha approved it on 3 September 2012, and the Rajya Sabha passed it
on 26 February 2013. By this, the Courts have assumed the legislative function in an overt
manner, rather than in the traditional interstitial sense. It is noted that the legislature took an
additional 15 years to pass legislation on this subject after the court also issued directions on
the matter. This fact now justifies the Court's overt action in fulfilling the function of a
constitutional court to safeguard fundamental rights103.

The Court in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, despite the fact that the petition was
specifically about child labour in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, where a significant number of
children were employed in the hazardous industry of matchbox manufacturing, deemed it
appropriate to address the issue from a broader perspective and in a broader spectrum,
viewing it as a national issue. Consequently, the court in this Public Interest Litigation
addressed the issue of juvenile labour and devised a solution to improve India. The judiciary,
rather than passively observing the endeavours of other government entities, recognized the
situation and provided guidance on how to resolve it. The most critical direction was that the
offending employer, who was unlawfully employing children in such hazardous work, was
required to contribute Rs. 20,000 to a fund called the Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-
Welfare Fund. This fund is intended to be used exclusively for the benefit of the child. The
court also noted in this case that the government must either offer employment for an adult
member of every family with a child who is employed in a factory, mine, or other hazardous
work, or, if it is not possible to provide an adult family member with a job, contribute Rs.
5000 to the Child Labor Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund for each employed in a factory,
mine, or other hazardous work. It would also be the responsibility of adults who received jobs
in this manner to ensure that their offspring enroll in full-time education and do not continue
to work. This decision also informed India of the international instrument acceptance of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was concluded by the UN General Assembly
on November 20, 1989. This instrument extends protection to children in a variety of ways,
including physically, politically, economically, socially, and culturally, as well as in terms of

103
Marvick, D. and Flathman, R.E. (1967). The Public Interest: An Essay concerning the Normative Discourse
of Politics. The Western Political Quarterly, 20(3), p.778. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/446246.

150
their human rights. The Court's decision was intended to achieve the objectives of this
international instrument.
Regardless of the government of India agreeing to ratify the convention in 1992, as well as
the legislature on the subject, it took over a decade to adequately implement it. This is how
Public Interest Litigation assisted in the resolution of critical national issues and the adoption
and implementation of international conventions within our system.

The Supreme Court issued directives in M.C. Mehta v. UOI to safeguard the natural world
from pollutants caused by vehicular traffic and to safeguard individuals from road accidents.
These guidelines stipulated that vehicles must be equipped with speed control devices,
operate at a maximum speed of 40 kilometres per hour, refrain from overtaking passenger
vehicles, and be operated exclusively by an authorized driver. The Court once again emerged
to address the gaps that were not addressed by the legislature or the executive. Critics have
accused the judiciary of becoming proactive and exceeding its authority by assuming the
roles of the legislature and executive in these instances. In the strictest sense, these are
examples of judicial excessivism that contradict the principle of separation of powers 104.

The doctrine of separation of powers posits that a single organ of the government should
exclusively perform its functions and not conduct a function that is fundamentally the
responsibility of another organ. In reality, this hermetic separation is impractical. Judiciary
while legislating through application and expansion of the implications of open-textured
phrases such as due process of law, equal protection of law, and freedom of speech and
expression is a proper judicial operation, the creation of entirely new law, as the Supreme
Court has done in the aforementioned cases, is not a legitimate judicial function.

The scope of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution was expanded by Hussainara Khatoon416 to Navtej Singh Johar, which led to
the declaration of numerous unenumerated or positive rights, including the Right to Food, the
Right to Clean Environment, the Right to Shelter, the Right to Legal Aid, and the Right to
Privacy, as intrinsic components of this right under Article 21 through Public Interest
Litigation. It demonstrates the Supreme Court's expansion of its activity, the shift in the class
members who take advantage of this process, its creative use of methods and remedies, and

104
Po Jen Yap and Lau, H. (2010). Public Interest Litigation in Asia.
doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842645.

151
the diverse interests that public interest litigants have advocated for over the past few
decades. The fact that a significant number of individuals and social activists have appealed
to the Court's jurisdictions indicates that there has been a greater dependence on the judicial
method to address the grievances of the public and to ensure that government institutions are
held more accountable. This also enables the Constitution to encompass the changing
requirements of society and preserve its dynamic nature.

In contrast to the United States and Canada, Public Interest Litigation was initiated by the
judiciary in India. It has, however, been more beneficial to social activists and the people who
have sustained it than to those who have employed political methods such as demonstrations,
Satyagraha, or collective protest. A cohort of consumers has emerged who have developed a
vested interest in the use of Public Interest Litigation. It may be impossible for the court to
revert to its high-profile function, which it has projected through its proactive decisions. A
foreign observer has observed that the Court is attempting to achieve the impossible in Indian
Public Interest Litigation, which is the result of post-emergency judicial activism 105.
The conceptual framework of the adversarial judicial process has been the primary source of
criticism for public interest litigation. The Court undoubtedly surpasses the boundaries of the
judicial function, even from the perspective of the new paradigm of the democratic judicial
process. The Court's decisions were not generally well-received.

The Supreme Court has undoubtedly overstepped its bounds and violated the limits of
separation of powers through these decisions. It is not within its capacity to establish such
positive rights, abolish child labour, halt environmental degradation, or address governmental
lawlessness. Nevertheless, this judicial activism is embraced not only by individuals and
social activists who resort to it, but also by authorities, political groups, civil servants, legal
authorities (such as the President, the Election Commission, and the National Human Rights
Commission), statutory authorities, and other political players. The Court was granted a
restricted function during the Nehru era, and it was emphasized that it ought not to be
elevated to the status of the third chamber of Parliament. The political establishment has
resulted in an increasing number of concerns being referred to the courts for resolution since
1989. The Supreme Court's decisions regarding the structure of the CBI were not protested.

105
Cottrell, J. (1994). In the Public Interest: Essays on Public Interest Litigation and Participatory Justice. By
Mario Gomez. [Colombo: University of Colombo, Legal Aid Centre. 1993. 209 pp. ISBN 955-9211-02-1. No
price given]. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 43(1), pp.237–238.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/43.1.237.

152
As evidenced by the following statement of the erudite Chief Justice, the Government of
India also agreed to the legislative directives established in a limited number of Public
Interest Litigation cases:

The formulation of guidelines was the result of the progress made at each hearing, and the
Union of India granted its consent to these guidelines through the learned Solicitor General.
This indicates that the guidelines and norms declared by this Court should govern the
behaviour of hiring managers and all others at the workplace in order to curb this social evil.
The Court has initiated mediation between government institutions and employees in order to
facilitate a peaceful resolution of their disputes. A strike by senior doctors of the All-India
Institute of Medical Sciences in Delhi was suspended at the request of the Delhi High Court.
The Court directed the government to pay the physicians' salaries in accordance with the
recommendations of a committee that was established for that purpose until a final settlement
was reached between the government and the physicians106.

The protests were initiated solely when judicial activism threatened to infringe upon the
discretionary authority of legislators or civil servants. In an effort to stifle the judiciary,
covert measures were implemented to restrict the admissibility of applicants to file Public
Interest Litigations. However, these actions were subsequently met with public protests,
which resulted in their withdrawal. The political establishment was unable to strip the court
of their newly gained power due to a lack of ethical decency and legislative fortitude, despite
discussions of even streamlining judicial activism. One of the explanations for this is that the
Courts have established a place in the affections of the people. This was due to the fact that
the judiciary was the sole remedy available to address the grievances of the populace.
Although Public Interest Litigation appears to be nothing more than tokenism due to the fact
that this judicial system is inaccessible to a large number of people, the public has placed a
greater trust in judges than in politicians. The judiciary has disappointed the people in a
limited number of cases. For instance, its authorship of the settlement between Union Carbide
Corporation and the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy, which included the quashing of every
criminal and civil lawsuit brought against Union Carbide Corporation, or its decision during
the emergency in A.D. M. Jabalpur v/s Shiv Kant Shukla, are examples. Nevertheless, the
political establishment and the general populace have not raised any objections to the judicial

106
Chandrachud, C. (2018). Anticorruption by Fiat: Structural Injunctions and Public Interest Litigation in the
Supreme Court of India. Socio-Legal Review, 14(2), p.170. doi:https://doi.org/10.55496/arbc3995.

153
activism. Judicial activism is not condemned as such due to its beneficial impact on society,
despite occasional criticism of individual decisions107.

SUGGESTION

The following suggestions are being proposed by researchers in their ongoing research to
mitigate the improper use and abuse of this public interest litigation mechanism, thereby
enhancing its effectiveness as a remedy and a weapon for safeguarding the public interest:
The primary reason for the abuse of public interest litigation (otherwise, it would be an
extremely potent tool) is that it is not regulated. Everything that is not under supervision and
control is in jeopardy. Consequently, it is time to modify the mechanism. This procedure may
be regulated by the legislature. Consequently, it is imperative that the government
implements legislation to oversee litigation in the public interest. As previously mentioned,
Rajaya Sabha attempted to replicate this endeavour in 1996; however, it was unsuccessful.
Consequently, efforts to mitigate the misuse of public interest litigation are also unsuccessful.
The legislature should immediately propose a stringent regulatory law that outlines the costs
of procedural abuses and establishes penalties for them. It has been a time that was necessary,
as public interest litigation has grown into a significant component of Constitutional Court
litigation.

In order to register a public interest lawsuit, a suitable format must be provided. In order to
establish regulations for the submission of public interest litigation, it is imperative to modify
the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Law. The format ought to be modulated to prevent
or at least discourage trivial petitions. While the Supreme Court and the High Court have
established regulations that permit the review of the petitioner's credentials for public interest
litigation, there are currently no established rules or parameters to determine whether a
specific issue is public interest or not. The term "public interest" is a subjective concept that
has been meticulously developed over time to ensure that marginalized individuals are treated
fairly. Consequently, it cannot be contained within hermetic compartments through the
implementation of such regulations. Therefore, the judiciary should establish self-discipline
when determining whether to approve specific matters as requests for public interest
litigation. To this day, judges continue to wield immense authority in determining whether a
specific event is in the public interest, and they abuse this power while acknowledging the
107
Chowdhury, N. (2013). Environmental risk regulation and the Indian Supreme Court: an exercise in de-
formalization of the law? Journal of Risk Research, 17(1), pp.61–80.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.822918.

154
prevalence of inaccurate cases. In this instance, the sole means of achieving judicial
objectives is through judicial self-regulation. The legal system must be innovative, but it must
also be subject to its own limitations in order to provide justice to the impoverished and
oppressed members of society108.
Conversely, researchers have noted that the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana have
implemented stringent regulations regarding the commencement of public interest lawsuits
since 2010, which has rendered the process exceedingly challenging.
Subsequently, the judge's perspectives were also deleterious to litigation in the public interest.
Consequently, certain petitions that were legitimately filed in the public interest were denied.
This has impacted the propensity of the public, including public spirits, to attend court.

even though the method has been challenged with the cancellation, the cause of the
impoverished is not often accepted now. However, lawsuits in the public interest continue to
exist and represent a significant revolutionary change. Consequently, the court should ensure
that the requirements for filing and allowing public interest litigation are restricted in order to
filter trivial petitions without compromising the essence of the public interest litigation
mechanism.
In the event that a public interest lawsuit is dropped, an obligatory lawsuit should be
rigorously enforced to either provide recompense or make an entire commitment to the court
to reimburse for the damage.

A prevalent source of awareness is the media. Consequently, it is imperative to arrange and

publicize strategies through the media to raise awareness at the grassroots level that the whole
legal system is at risk if this mechanism is misused. The empirical data acquired by
researchers in this study is also evident; the media plays a significant role in influencing
opinions and disseminating awareness. The media, which is also regarded as the fourth pillar
of democracy, is responsible for emphasizing violence, as well as identifying notable schemes
and assassinations.

In numerous public interest litigations, applicants have been observed to abuse court
procedures by their attorneys. Consequently, lawyers, in conjunction with the media, should
refrain from utilizing public interest litigation as publicity material. They should endeavor to
108
Gilbert, A. and Chakraborty, J. (2011). Using geographically weighted regression for environmental justice
analysis: Cumulative cancer risks from air toxics in Florida. Social Science Research, [online] 40(1), pp.273–
286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.006.

155
differentiate between personal and public interests.
It is hereby recommended that litigants who file lawsuits in the public interest in their own
names must include the affidavit and refrain from charging the public a petition in order to
restrict attorneys from undertaking public interest litigation. It will prevent the filing of those
funded public interest litigation, and only genuine litigants will file them due to the anxiety
surrounding the high costs109.

Individuals who discover that they have employed charitable lawsuits for ulterior purposes
may be required to exercise some economic discipline. Simultaneously, it is worthwhile to
evaluate whether economic stimulus measures, including pro bono lawsuits, protected cost
orders, legal assistance, civil society/non-governmental groups for the public good lawsuits,
and friends of the court, public interest lawsuits, should be implemented. Today, we have
implemented alternative dispute resolution (ADR) solutions, including mediation, arbitration,
and reconciliation, which have demonstrated notable success. Public institutions should also
implement this system, as it will mitigate litigation and conserve valuable court time. It is
being noted in the research that the execution of the directions given in Public Interest
Litigation cases is a challenge due to practical difficulties and the adverse manipulation of the
directions by the authorities and the public to evade their implementation. This further
diminishes its efficacy and renders it a substandard remedy. Therefore, it is necessary to have
a distinct administrative machinery in order to ensure the correct implementation. In order to
surmount the technical obstacles that impede the implementation of these directives, it is
imperative that technical expertise be selected at the grassroots level.

Undoubtedly, Public Interest Litigation has become a well-established legal mechanism in the
Supreme Court and the other twenty-four High Courts in India. Its significance has been felt
throughout the nation. These petitions and rulings from courts have dealt with issues of
general significance from nearly every tier of society, community, and region. Access to
justice has been enhanced by the implementation of Public Interest Litigation.

It has introduced novel concerns to the judicial system. With this mechanism, the ambition of
constitutionally recognized rights has been expanded and clarified. This mechanism has
enabled the examination of the legal system's operation and the assessment of its impact on
access to justice, thereby enabling the assessment of the feasibility of Public Interest
109
Sawhney, A. (2002). Public Interest Litigation as Indirect Market-Based Instrument of Pollution Control.
SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2154537.

156
Litigation as a method for resolving inequity. It offers a fundamental dilemma for human
rights activists: whether to advocate for reform or revolution.

Jawaharlal Nehru referred to the Court as the "third House of Parliament" due to the fact that
the initial dispute between the judiciary and the legislature did not account for poverty issues,
but rather reflected opposing perspectives on prominent questions of government110.

The framework of the colonial state determined the conditions of the initial discussion about
the judiciary, which resulted in the manipulation of judicial appointments and numerous
constitutional amendments. Subsequently, in the 1970s, social, political, and legal factors
were combined to ensure that all individuals had access to justice. Additionally, the
promotion of human rights jurisprudence was facilitated by international influences.
Subsequently, in the post-emergency period, the judiciary, legal profession, and media
collaborated with participants in political as well as social activities to realize the previously
untapped potential of the legal system and its institutions. Public Interest Litigation was the
outcome of these endeavours.

In fact, this Public Interest Litigation strategy was developed to ensure that a large number of
individuals who are denied their fundamental human rights have access to justice. It enables
individuals to have their voices heard in the judicial system. The Supreme Court and various
High Courts are innovating this remedy from Articles 32 and 226 in order to address the
grievances of impoverished and oppressed members of society, as the Constitution of India
does not contain a particular provision for this remedy. Through the concept of judicial
activism, judges are the primary innovators of this form of litigation. This has created new
opportunities to bring justice closer to the average person.
The Supreme Court and the High Courts are respectively granted the authority to issue
"directions, orders, or writs" in order to achieve the objectives of Articles 32 and 226,
respectively. The Courts have issued directives for a variety of purposes that were previously
beyond their jurisdiction, in order to provide justice to the oppressed, through the
implementation of this creative approach of Public Interest Litigation. The courts have been
able to enforce the fundamental rights of the determinate class of society that is seeking

110
Smet, S. (2020). COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(3), pp.611–651.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589320000196.

157
redress through the exercise of their powers under these Articles111.

The apex court and the High Courts have been providing appropriate relief to individuals who
have been victims of the State's inaction for the past few decades, beginning with the Ratlam
case. Be it the case of flesh trade in the Protective Home of Agra, roadway and slum dwellers
in Bombay, payment of minimum wages and other benefits to workers in various state
projects, abolition of bonded labour, protection of the environment and ecology, and so forth,
the courts have taken cognizance of the issues and have provided the victims with appropriate
remedies. It was only through the innovative application of this instrument of Public Interest
Litigation that all of this was made possible. Courts have issued directives for the
appointment of committees or for the government to implement a scheme. They may issue
specific directives to the parties regarding whether or not to execute a particular action. For
instance, the directive in the Azad Rickshaw Pullers case31 requested that the Punjab
National Bank advance loans to the rickshaw pullers and included a comprehensive plan for
loan repayment. In the case of Common Cause v. UOI, the directives outlined the collection,
storage, and distribution of blood for transfusion, as well as the measures to ensure that the
process was free of hazards. The Supreme Court issued guidelines regarding the education of
children of prostitutes, the fee structure of private medical or engineering colleges, the
preparation of a housing scheme for pavement dwellers or squatters, and the protection of the
CBI from extraneous influences while conducting investigations against individuals in high
positions.

When contract labourers employed by the Food Corporation of India requested that the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 be extended to include them, the Court
instructed the relevant governments to establish committees under section 5 of the Act. These
committees were to conduct the requisite inquiries and submit reports regarding the abolition
of contract labour in the corporations.37The apex court's decision in the Bandhua Mukti
Morcha case resulted in the release of a number of bonded labourers. Additionally, the
Haryana government was issued specific directives, and commissions were constituted to
monitor the implementation of these directives for the purpose of Rehabilitation.
Furthermore, in Neerja Chaudhary v. State of MP, the court was informed that the indentured
labourers who had been released were awaiting rehabilitation. Consequently, the court

111
Balachandran, B. and Faff, R. (2015). Corporate governance, firm value and risk: Past, present, and future.
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35, pp.1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.07.002.

158
established a Vigilance Committee to facilitate their rehabilitation 112. The effective
implementation of these orders of the apex court was the result of similar public interest
litigations filed in Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar. Forty The government was
directed by the Supreme Court in Kishen v. State of Orissa to implement measures to prevent
starvation fatalities caused by poverty. The Court issued these directives to the government in
the form of specific decrees. They were administrative in nature. This is the manner in which
the Public Interest Litigation has facilitated the implementation of welfare laws to promote
socio-economic justice in society.

112
McDonald, J. (2011). The role of law in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 2(2), pp.283–295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.96.

159
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
 Indian Constitutional law, by V.N Shukla
 Constitution of India, M.P Jain
Journals
 Public Inter Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations,
Zachary Holladay
 What a Jagged Little PIL: The People’s Court at 75, Gulnar A. Mistry
Articles
 What is Public Interest Litigation and What is Its Importance?, Mayashree Acharya
Public Interest Litigation: Access to Justice, Dr. Saroj Bohra
 Agrawal, A. (2018). Public Interest Litigation: A Critical Review. International
Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development
 Allan, J. (1997). The Rise of Judicial Activism in New Zealand. Agenda - A Journal
of Policy Analysis and Reform
 ANI (2024). Delhi HC dismisses PIL to mandate all medical professionals to specify
possible risks of associated drug.
 Anuj Bhuwania (2017). Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-
Emergency India.
 Bari, M.E. and Bari, M.E. (2012). Liberalization of the Traditional Rule of Locus
Standi in the United Kingdom and Malaysia: A Comparative Study
 Bhardwaj, P. (2023). Supreme Court, in a balancing act, commutes Death Sentence to
20 Years Imprisonment in Indiscriminate Firing case that killed 6.
 Bohra, S. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice Introduction.
 Bose, A. (2021). The Supreme Court of India and delay in execution of death penalty
as a ground for commutation to life imprisonment
 Burley, A.-M. and Mattli, W. (1993). Europe Before the Court: A Political Theory of
Legal Integration. International Organization
 Cassels, J. (1989). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India:
Attempting the Impossible? The American Journal of Comparative Law
 Chandra, A. (2018). Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-
Emergency India. International Journal of Constitutional Law

160
 CHOWDHURY, N. (2020). Judicial Cartography in Public Interest Litigation in
India: Re-reading the Kudankulam case.
 CRAIG, P.P. and DESHPANDE, S.L. (1989). Rights, Autonomy and Process: Public
Interest Litigation in India.
 Deva, S. (2009). Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review. 28(1), pp.19–
40.
 Drishti IAS. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation.
 Faure, M.G. and Raja, A.V. (2011). Effectiveness of Environmental Public Interest
Litigation in India: Determining the Key Variables.
 Feroz, A. (2021). Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan: Political or Social? Academia
Letters.
 Fu, H. and Cullen, R. (2009). The Development of Public Interest Litigation in China.
 Garg, R. (2021). All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
 Garg, R. (2023). Difference between PIL and writ
 Ghosh, P. (2013b). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India. SSRN
Electronic Journal.
 Griffith, J. (1997). Public Interest Litigation and JR.
 Holladay (2012a). Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing
Nations. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies
 Justiceinitiative.org. (2016). Anti-Corruption Litigation in the Supreme Court of
India.
 Kopytova, O.S. (2020). JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND
JUDICIAL SELF-LIMITATION: THE INTERACTION OF LEGAL CATEGORIES
IN GENERAL THEORETIC ASPECT
 (2018). On the Connection between Environmental Public Interest Litigation by
Procuratorial Organs and Environmental Damage Compensation System - An
Analysis Based on Judicial Practice -. Chinese Law Review
 Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic
Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization
 Pleming, N. (1998). The Contribution of Public Interest Litigation to the
Jurisprudence of JR
 Pranjal Kumar Sinha (2024). Life Imprisonment Quandaries: Legal Perspectives And
Sentencing Complexity

161
 Priest, G.L. and Klein, B. (1984a). The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. The
Journal of Legal Studies
 RATHINAM, F.X. and RAJA, A.V. (2011). Courts as regulators: public interest
litigation in India. Environment and Development Economic
 Razzaq, M. (2014). Public Interest Litigation in Anti-Dumping Laws
 Sehgal, D.R. (2020). Rights of prisoners and major judgments on it.
 Sehgal, D.R. (2021). Use and abuse of the Public Interest Litigation
 Silwal, R. (2011). Right Against Torture and Case of Maina Sunuwar: An Analysis in
the Light of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
 Sood, A.M. (2008). Gender Justice through Public Interest Litigation: Case Studies
from India
 Srivastava, G.S. (2018). Public Interest Litigation
 The PILS Project. (2022). What is Public Interest Litigation - The PILS Project NI.
 Tripathi, A. (2023). SC converts death penalty to life term with 20 yrs minimum jail
for convict in case of indiscriminate firing, killing six.
 United Nations (1988). Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
 van der Valk, S. and Rogan, M. (2020). Experiencing human rights protections in
prisons: The case of prison monitoring in Ireland. European Journal of Criminology,
 Vandenhole, W. (2000). People, Law, and Justice: A Casebook of Public-Interest
Litigation, and: Supreme Court on Public Interest Litigation: Cases and Materials,
The Debate over Original Intent,I - IV (review). Human Rights Quarterly
 Zhu, X.Q. and He, J.L. (2013). Development and Outlook of Environmental Public
Interest Litigation against Source Water Pollution – A New Judicial Practice in China.
Applied Mechanics and Materials

162