All you need to know about Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

 Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. What is a PIL?

3. Who can file a PIL?

4. Where can a PIL be filed?

5. Laws governing PIL in India

6. What are some essentials of drafting a PIL?

7. What is the procedure for filing a PIL? 8. Conclusion

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s^[when?] the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions.

Introduction -

Taj Mahal, the eternal symbol of love in India, has withstood the brutal force of the elements for centuries. But this magnificent monument was almost destroyed by pollution. That is, until a lawyer by the name of M.C. Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions from the Hon’ble Court to direct authorities to take steps to stop pollution.

Another example of a PIL is the Oleum Gas Leak Case that established the concept of “absolute liability” in Indian law.

A Public Interest Litigation also known as PIL is a form of litigation that is filed to safeguard or enforce public interest. Public Interest is the interest belonging to a particular class of the community affects their legal rights or liabilities. It may include pecuniary interest.

What is a PIL?

PIL has not been defined in any Indian statute. However, Courts have interpreted and defined PIL. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary, [(AIR 1993 SC 892) (see here)], held that lexically, the expression ‘PIL’  means a legal action started in a court of law for the enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular class of the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects their legal rights or liabilities.

PILs are considered to be the most effective as well as the most commonly used judicial tool to safeguard the environment due to their many advantages including but not limited to speedy results, nominal court fees, relaxed procedural rules and the wide variety of investigative techniques available to courts like special committees.

Who can file a PIL?

Any individual or organisation can file a PIL either in his/her/their own standing i.e. to protect or enforce a right owed to him/her/them by the government or on behalf of a section of society who is disadvantaged or oppressed and is not able to enforce their own rights.

The concept of “Locus Standi” has been relaxed in the case of PILs so as to enable the Hon’ble Court to look into grievances that are filed on behalf of those who are poor, illiterate, deprived or disabled and are unable to approach the courts themselves.

However, only a person acting in good faith and who has sufficient interest in the proceeding will have the locus standi to file a PIL. A person who approaches the Hon’ble Court for personal gain, private profit, political or any oblique consideration will not be entertained.

Suo moto cognizance may also be taken by the Court.

Where can a PIL be filed?

PILs are extensions of Writ Jurisdiction. Therefore, PILs may be filed either before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution or any High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

However, even a simple letter or a postcard addressed to the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of a High Court may suffice. The court may then choose to take cognizance of the letter and convert it into a PIL as in the case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(AIR 1989 SC 594) (see here)], where the Hon’ble Court converted a letter raising the issue of unauthorised and illegal mining in Mussoorie Hills into a writ petition under Public Interest Litigation.

Laws governing PIL in India

Over the years, the courts in India have formulated various principles with respect to PILs:

• Relaxed rule of locus standi- PILs can be filed by any person for the welfare of others who are disadvantaged and are thus unable to approach the courts themselves. Thus, the general rule of locus standi has been relaxed in cases of PILs to protect and safeguard the interests and rights of these disadvantaged people.
• Relaxed procedural rules- Courts have treated even a letter or a telegram as a PIL as in the case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (see here).  Even the law regarding pleadings has been relaxed by the courts in cases of PILs.
• Intervention by the courts– Courts has also highlighted the fact that Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for a fair and reasonable trial. Thus, Courts must intervene when injustice is done to many.
• Question of maintainability- The Government may not be allowed to raise questions as to the maintainability of the PIL if the court is prime facie satisfied that there is a variation of any constitutional rights of a disadvantaged category of people.
• Principle of Res Judicata- The principle of res judicata or any principles analogous to it would depend on the circumstances and facts of the case and the nature of the PIL.
• Appointment of a Commission- In special circumstances, a court may appoint a Commission or other bodies to investigate. In the event that the Commission takes over a public institution, the Court may direct management of it.
• PILs regarding constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule– Ordinarily, the High Court should not entertain such a petition by way of a PIL.
• Complete Justice– Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the discretionary power to pass a decree or order as may be necessary to do complete justice. However, while high courts may pass orders to do complete justice, they do not have powers akin to those granted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142.  
• Misuse of PILs– Courts are extremely cautious to ensure that PILs are not misused as the misuse of PILs would defeat the very purpose for which it was conceived i.e. to come to the rescue of the poor and the downtrodden. The courts have, time and again, reiterated this fact as in the case of Kushum Lata v. Union of India {[(2006) 6 SCC 180] (see here)}. However, courts have held that even if the petitioner had approached the court for his own private interest due to his personal grievances, the court may treat it necessary to inquire into the subject of the litigation and its state of affairs in furtherance of public interest.
• Formulation of various concepts–  In environmental law cases, the courts have formulated and evolved several concepts including the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle, the Public Trust Doctrine and Sustainable Development.

What are some essentials of drafting a PIL?

The following are some of the essential steps that should be followed when drafting a PIL:

• Collection of information– The first step of drafting a PIL would be to collect all relevant information pertaining to the issue.
• Collation of documents– All documents regarding the case including photographs if any, must be collated.
• Court in which it is to be filed– The Petitioner must decide in which he/she/it wants to file the PIL, whether before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court of that State.
• Form of the PIL– A PIL can be in the form of a Petition or even a letter or postcard. In the event that the PIL is to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the letter/postcard must be addressed to the Chief Justice of India. In the event that the PIL is to be filed before a High Court, the letter/postcard must be addressed to the Chief Justice of that particular High Court.
• Public Litigation Guidelines– When drafting a PIL, one must look at the Public Litigation Guidelines applicable for the particular court before which one intends to file the PIL. The same are usually available on the websites of the respective courts.
• Details to clearly stated– The following details must be clearly stated:
  1. Petitioner’s name, postal address, email address, phone number, occupation, annual income and PAN number.
  2. Proof of identity of the Petitioner must be annexed.
  3. Facts of the case.
  4. Nature of the injury.
  5. Any personal interest that he/she/it may have.
  6. Details of any litigation involving the petitioner which could have a legal nexus with the issue involved in the PIL.
  7. The class of persons for whose benefit the PIL is being filed and how they are incapable of accessing the courts themselves.
  8. In the event that any representations have been made to any authorities regarding the issue, the details of the same.
  9. Any person/body/institution that may be affected by the PIL must be joined as a party.
  10. The Petitioner must also state that he/she/they are able to pay costs, if any, that may be imposed by the court.
• Appearance in court- The Petitioner may either appoint an advocate or choose to appear in person.

What is the procedure for filing a PIL?

Details on the procedure of filing PILs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a High Court are summarized in the table below.

	Supreme Court	High Court
Number of copies of the PIL to be filed	5	2
Service of copy upon Respondent(s) / Opposite Party(ies)	To be served in advance	To be served only when the Hon’ble Court issues notice regarding the same.
Court Fees to be affixed on the Petition	Rs.50/- per Respondent / Opposite Party	Rs.50/- per Respondent / Opposite Party

A PIL can be filed in the same way as a writ petition.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) guidelines are available on the website of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (see here). It states inter alia that certain letter-petitions that fall under certain categories alone will ordinarily be treated as PILs including petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wildlife and other matters of public importance.

Conclusion

A PIL is an important judicial tool especially for the protection of the rights of those who are unable to approach the courts themselves. They are one of the most commonly used forms of litigation, especially in environmental cases. The courts have tried to make rules regarding PILs simpler so as to not discourage the filing of PILs in public interest and on behalf of the poor, disable or deprived classes of persons. However, there are several instances in which people have tried to further their own private interests under the guise of PILs. Thus, courts must continue to remain extremely cautious to ensure that PILs are not misused.

The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) is suited to the principles enshrined in Article 39A^[a] of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law. Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. After the emergency era the high court reached out to the people and devised a means for any person of the public (or NGO) approaching the court to seek legal remedy in cases where public interest is at stake. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in court.^[4] Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as a usual legal case; there have been instances when letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been heard as PILs.^[5]

The Supreme Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi; it requested the enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who lived in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, 1982 (2) SCC 583  : 1982 SCC (Cri) 511  : AIR 1983 SC 339, the court treated a letter addressed to a judge of the court by the Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486  : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74  : 1995 (3) SCC 743  : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600  : AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court alleging human rights violations of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) detainees; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

FRIVOLOUS PIL NOT PERMITTED

In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the misuse of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some balance restored in recent times”.^{[citation needed]} In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice (assisted by Bhagwati and Iyer) prepared a law regulating PILs.

The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions”. For example, a petition drafted by Amar Singh was vague, not in conformance with the rules of procedure, and contained inconsistencies; the court did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). A positive outcome of the case was the court's request that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines to prevent interception of telephone conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case, Reliance Communications acted upon a forged request from police.

In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation in business conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high court dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos substitutes. A similar petition was then submitted to the Supreme Court. The plea was dismissed, and the plaintiff was assessed a fine of ₹100,000. The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in banning of [sic] the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was made by it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute for asbestos. Thus it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of court”. The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to punish the petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act; it must “ensure that such unscrupulous and undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the valuable time of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system”.

“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies', a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment. The bench overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court decision which set aside the services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed by the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. The high court’s decision concerned a public-interest petition filed by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the loss of “300 gold dollars” from the temple and should not continue in office. The Supreme Court found that the high court decided against the accused with little information about Reddy himself.

ImportanceEdit

Public interest litigation gives a wider description to the right to equality, life and personality, which is guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India. It also functions as an effective instrument for changes in the society or social welfare. Through public interest litigation, any public or person can seek remedy on behalf of the oppressed class by introducing a PIL.^[8]

Parties against whom PILs can be filedEdit

A PIL may be filed against state government, central government, municipal authority. Also, private person may be included in PIL as ‘Respondent’, after concerned of state authority. i.e. a private factory in Mumbai which is causing pollution then public interest litigation can be filed against government of Mumbai, state pollution central board including that private factory of Mumbai.^[8]

Filing a PIL under article 32, 226 Constitution of India or section 133 Cr. P. C.Edit

The court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfills some basic needs for PIL as the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited individual and a social action group for the enforcement of legal or Constitutional rights to any person who are not able to approach the court for redress. Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition:

• Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.
• Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.
• Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in a magistrate's court.^[8]

Landmark PIL casesEdit

Vishaka v. State of RajasthanEdit

The case fought against sexual harassment in the workplace and was filed by Bhanwari Devi, who, after trying to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl in rural Rajasthan, was raped by five men. She faced numerous problems when she (Devi) attempted to seek justice. Naina Kapoor decided to initiate a PIL to challenge sexual harassment at workplace in the Supreme Courts.

The judgement of the case recognized sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Articles 14, 15, and 21. The guidelines also directed for sexual harassment prevention.^[8]

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

The court shut down numerous industries and allowed them to reopen only after controlled pollution disposal in the Ganga basin.^[8]

Impact of PIL

Frivolous PILs not permitted

Impact of PIL

Further