Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Indian legal system

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows each and every citizen of India to raise any issue that is closely related to the public interest. It provides protection to public interests and the rights of the people. It is a kind of power that has been given to the public by the courts of law through a judicious process. However, it is mandatory for the person filing a petition in court to give ample proof that the issue raised by him or her has a grave connection with the public interest.

Such cases may come to light when a victim does not have the required resources or when his or her powers and freedom have been suppressed. Any person with the milk of human kindness in his heart can take this type of matter to the court of law. The seeds of this concept in India were sown by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court, notably in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976), and the jurisdiction was later developed and given its modern shape largely through the efforts of Justice P.N. Bhagwati in cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981). Public Interest Litigation has acquired paramount importance in the Indian legal system, and with growing education and awareness, people are becoming more accustomed to asserting their legal rights.

Who Can File a PIL and What Qualifies as a PIL

This litigation system empowers even a common man to file a petition if he or she observes something that is not in favour of humanity or that can cause irreparable harm. The traditional rule of locus standi states that only a person whose own right to justice has been encroached upon can file a petition. PIL relaxes this rule: the Supreme Court has held that any public-spirited citizen or social organisation acting bona fide may move the court on behalf of a person or class of persons who, due to poverty, disability or a socially or economically disadvantaged position, are themselves unable to approach the court. A genuine PIL must concern the enforcement of the rights of the public or a disadvantaged group - it cannot be a vehicle for the petitioner’s private interest.

Art. 32 vs. Art. 226 - How a PIL Is Filed

A PIL is not a separate procedure but is filed through the writ jurisdiction of the constitutional courts:

• Article 32 of the Constitution allows a petitioner to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 32 is itself a fundamental right.
• Article 226 allows a petitioner to approach a High Court, which has wider scope as it can issue writs both for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose” (that is, for the violation of ordinary legal rights as well).

In practice, even a letter or postcard addressed to the court highlighting a genuine public grievance can be treated as a writ petition - a relaxed procedure known as “epistolary jurisdiction”.

Landmark PIL Cases

Most of the time, public-spirited and intellectually empowered people file petitions, sometimes even against large industrial houses, airline companies and telecom service providers, in the public interest. Some of the landmark cases that shaped PIL in India include:

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) - the right to a speedy trial of undertrial prisoners.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) - formally recognised the relaxed rule of locus standi for public interest matters.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (a series of cases) - environmental protection and the “polluter pays” and “absolute liability” principles.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) - guidelines against sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

Safeguards Against Frivolous PILs

Because the relaxed rules were being misused, the Apex Court laid down safeguards to ensure the right use of this powerful tool. The Supreme Court issued guidelines on the handling of PILs in 1998 and reiterated them in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), directing the High Courts to frame rules to encourage genuine PILs and to discourage petitions filed for personal gain, private profit, political motive or other oblique considerations. Courts may impose costs on petitioners who file frivolous or motivated petitions. The guiding principle remains that in filing a petition there should be no hidden personal interest of the petitioner; it should relate wholly to the interest of the public.