International Indexed &Referred Research Journal, May, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.

III *ISSUE-32

Research PaperLaw

PIL & SAL- A new mantra

* MonikaGarg **Satinder Kumar
May, 2012
* Assistant Professor, BSAIL, Faridabad
** Research Scholar, Kurukshetra University. Kurukshetra
Introduction
PIL has been in vogue in the country for
nearly two decades. An analysis of the courts' decisions pertaining to PIL reveals that the object served
by PIL is a multidimensional, speedier remedy, less
expensive, efficacious and shorn of procedural intricacies involved in an ordinary proceeding. It facilitates access to courts and helps deprofessionalisation
of the legal process. It makes the overall administration accountable for acts and omissions and thus induces them to adopt a pro-people outlook. PIL also
serves the object of educating people, creating consciousness and motivating the people to assert their
rights. The lapses of administration are exposed to
the people, thus lowering the government in esteem
of people and forcing it to rectify its mistakes and try
to be cautious in future.
As Prof.Baxi observes that SAL literally
takes the mask off the face of power which does not
want to be held within the law, power that is colonially repressive and at times openly brutal and which
only the courts could have checked. Ultimately they
have as their goal, justice to common man and ensuring that he is able to enjoy his rights free from undue
state interference.SAL has protested a vandalistic expropriation of India's resources by a corporate few
whether by challenging rapacious tree felling or indiscriminate dam-building. PILhas enabled the Supreme Court to exercise affirmative action to Traditionally called unenforceable socioeconomic rights
traditionally and enlarged the scope of Article 32.
According to Prof Baxi , SAL has achieved many
things.
1. SAL marked the advent of judicial populism.
2. It marked a moment of judicial catharsis.Apex
Indian adjudicators began performing a judicial
penance for their outrageous emergency decisions.
3. The Court democratized access to judiciary as a
collective right of the peoples of India through a
variety of approaches such as invoking epistolary
jurisdiction, innovating new practices of fact find
ing.
4. The Supreme Court recognized and created new
Fundamental Rights resulting in a gradual ero

40

sion of the distinction between Part Ill and Part IV

of constitution.
5. The Supreme Court assumed the role of a custo
dian of political morality such as to prevent run
away reservation quotas, which served more po
litical convenience than constitutional conviction.
6. The nineties witnessed the retreat from the Antulay
decisions, Judicial Activism enunciating the most
fundamental of all fundamental rights of the In
dian people, the right of all citizens of India to
immunity from acts of corruption by people in
high places manifesting in Supreme Court virtu
ally divesting the supreme executive of its powers
to control the operations of the CBI and has taken
over its day to day investigation of charges of cor
ruption in high places, even to the point of now
requiring approval of the Court to transfer the
head of the agency.
FindingsThe judiciary has thus become a prime instrumentality of re-democratizing the processes of governance and practice of politics. The contemporary
patterns of judicial behaviour of the judiciary have
transformed it from a mere apparatus of governance
into an institutionalized social movement. However
there can be no doubt that the Court's object of taking
up PIL will be best served if the legislature and executive are induced by these decisions to come forward
and the vacuum created in implementing the socioeconomic rights is filled by endeavouring to make the
basic human rights meaningful and thereby reduce
the burden of the judiciary.
Thus it is seen that while PIL may be expanding into newer areas, it appears to be getting detached
from the goals and objectives which activated it. A
number of questions arise, vitally of the obedience of
the orders of the court which challenges the basic
premise of PIL that it is to be a collaborative effort
between the courts, petitioner and the government . At
the same time, the orders of the Courts may venture
into the area of policy or may be very sweeping. It may
be said that PIL is like that potent weapon which should
be used prudently and cautiously and with circum-

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

International Indexed &Referred Research Journal, May, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-32

spection, less it can cause much harm to our delicately

balanced constitutional system. On the flip side, judges
have sculpted limits on their constitutional power and
duty even in matters entailing violation of people's
rights This was manifestly seen in the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy case which has reflected the inability of the
system to grapple with the problems of a mass Gas
Disaster of a horrendous nature involving criminal
acts, torts, liability, death, permanent incapacitation,
and other known and unknown diseases.
Ranganath Mishra,(Chief.Justice) in his
separate judgement while concurring with the conclusions of the majority judgement said, "I am prepared to assume, nay, concede, that public activists
should also be permitted to espouse the cause of the
poor citizens but there must be a limit set to such
activity and nothing perhaps should be done which

would affect the dignity of the Court and bring down

the serviceability of the institution to the people at
large."
Conclusion
Despite this, PILs pertaining to the tragedy
continued unabated leading to appointment of amicus curiae. The principal judgement in this case has
been termed as 'a saga of judicial betrayal of the very
activist enunciations offered though SAL' by Prof Baxi
while also displaying "an unprecedented solicitude
for the rights of global capital against and over the
fundamental rights of the people of India, expansively
affirmed by the Court itself" The same holds true of
the majority judgement in Narmada BachanAndolan
where the rights of people appear to have been given
the go-by. This has onlyaccentuated the criticism of
the PIL processes.

R E F E R E N C E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Public Interest litigation

Social action litigation
Prof.UpendraBaxi, "Judicial Activism: Usurpation or Re-democratization?" SCALE PIL.
VineetNarainv. Union of India 1996 (2) SCALE SP 42
VineetNarainv. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 889.
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997)8 SCC 114: AIR 1997 SC 3021.
Union Carbide Corporation &Orsv. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 674
Union Carbide Corporation &Orsv. Union of India 1991(2) SCALE 675 at 682.
Narmada BachaoAndolanv. Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664.

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

41