Full Form of PIL – Public Interest Litigation

Justice P. N. Bhagwati established the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which refers to lawsuits brought to protect the public interest while also showing that justice may be obtained by those who are socially disadvantaged. It’s a bending of the usual locus standi rule.

Before the 1980s, India’s courts and Supreme Court only heard lawsuits from those who have been harmed by the defendant directly or indirectly. There were no cases heard or resolved outside of the court’s original and appellate jurisdictions in this court.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has begun to accept cases based on public interest litigation, which means that even those who are not directly engaged in the case can present public interest concerns to the court. The court has the exclusive authority to consider the PIL plea.

History of PIL

A public interest lawsuit was filed by G. Vasantha Pai against the Madras High Court Chief Justice at that time, S. Ramachandra Iyer. As it was later discovered that the judge had forged his date of birth to avoid mandatory retirement at the age of 60. Not just this, his younger brother too sent invitations to celebrate his 60th birthday, and it was only then that Pai discovered evidence after photographing the original birth register that showed his real date of birth.

Because the lawsuit would have harmed the judiciary, Ramachandra Iyer resigned at the behest of then Chief Justice of India P. B. Gajendragadkar, and because he resigned before the case was set for hearing, the case was dropped because he had resigned.

In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani petitioned the government about the treatment of inmates in the Bihar Prison while their cases were pending in court. The plea was denied. Inmates of the Bihar prison signed the plea, which was submitted before the Supreme Court of India’s bench headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati.

According to the petition, Hussainara Khatoon was imprisoned, therefore the case was titled Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar. The Supreme Court ruled that inmates should have access to free legal counsel and expedited hearings.

40,000 inmates were freed as a consequence. After then, the Supreme Court was inundated with similar cases. The phrase “Public Interest Litigation” was first introduced by the Indian Supreme Court in the case of SP Gupta vs. Union of India.

In India, the idea of public interest litigation (PIL) is aligned with Article 39A[a] of the Constitution’s mandate to safeguard and deliver timely social justice through the rule of law. Before the 1980s, only the party who had been wronged could take their case to court.

After the emergency era, the high court went out to the people and developed a way for anybody from the public (or an NGO) to contact the court to seek legal recourse in instances where the public interest is at issue. The first two judges to accept PILs in court were Justice Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer. Filing a PIL is not as time-consuming as a typical legal dispute, but letters and telegrams may mount up quickly.

Cases of Historic Importance in the PIL Process

In the case of Vishaka v. Rajasthan

The lawsuit was brought by Bhanwari Devi, who was raped by five men after trying to halt the marriage of a one-year-old girl in rural Rajasthan. When she sought justice, she ran into a slew of issues. Naina Kapoor made the decision to file a PIL before the Supreme Court against sexual harassment in the workplace.

According to the ruling, sexual harassment violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. As a result of the recommendations, sexual harassment was avoided.

Indian government vs Mehta, M. C.

The court ordered the closure of several enterprises, and only when strict controls on pollution disposal in the Ganga basin were implemented, did it permit their reopening.

The results of the PIL

PILs, according to disputed research by social scientist Hans Dembowski, have been beneficial in holding government officials responsible for non-profit organizations. In addition to Dembowski’s findings at the grassroots level, environmental PIL cases in the Kolkata metropolitan agglomeration did not address basic causes (such as inadequate town planning).

Factors Contributing to the Growth of PIL in India

The Indian Constitution’s personality. India has a codified constitution that, through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), establishes a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens, as well as between citizens.

India has some of the most progressive social legislation in the world, whether it is pertaining to bonded labour, minimum salaries, land limits, environmental protection, or anything else. This has made it simpler for the courts to prosecute the executive when it fails to carry out its responsibilities under the law to protect the rights of the poor.

The liberal interpretation of locus standi, which allows anybody to apply to the court on behalf of people who are unable to come before it due to financial or physical constraints, has aided. In certain situations, judges have launched suo moto proceedings based on newspaper stories or correspondence received.

Although the social and economic rights included in Part IV of the Indian Constitution are not legally enforceable, courts have imaginatively incorporated them into basic rights, making them judicially enforceable. For example, under Article 21, the “right to life” has been enlarged to encompass the right to free legal assistance, the right to live with dignity, the right to education, the right to work, the freedom from torture, bar fetters, and handcuffing in jails, and so on.

Judicial reforms to assist the poor and marginalized: For example, in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Supreme Court placed the burden of evidence on the respondent, declaring that it would regard every incidence of forced labour as a case of bonded labour unless the employer proved otherwise.

Similarly, in the Asiad Workers decision case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati ruled that anyone earning less than the minimum wage can move straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the labour commissioner and lower courts.

Courts have formed commissions to collect information on facts and bring it before the bench in PIL cases where the petitioner is unable to submit all of the requisite evidence, either as it is really extensive or the parties are very weak either socially or economically.

In Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation has generated astounding achievements that would have been inconceivable three decades ago. Thus, through the intervention by the court, the grievances and issues of degraded bonded labourers, tortured under trials and women prisoners, exploited children, beggars.

The most significant impact of PIL has been to increase government responsibility for impoverished people’s human rights. The PIL establishes a new jurisprudence of the state’s liability for constitutional and legal breaches that harm the interests of the community’s weakest members.