JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT

USE AND ABUSE OF THE

PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Asad Malik Soumya Bansal

Faculty of Law B.A. LLB (H)

Jamia Millia Islamia 3rd Year, 6th Semester

 CONTENTS

1. Acknowledgement..2

2. Introduction3

3. Meaning of PIL...6

4. Evolution of PIL in India9

5. Reasons for Growth of PIL...13

6. Importance of PIL.18

7. Misuse of PIL and the Later Development...26

8. Conclusion32

9. Bibliography.34

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to all those who have helped me in making
this project. I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep
regards to my teacher Dr. Asad Malik for his exemplary guidance, monitoring
and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project. The blessing,
help and guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the
journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to the staff of
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, for their cordial support, valuable information
and guidance, which helped me in completing this task through various stages. I
am obliged for the valuable information provided by them in their respective
fields. I am grateful for their cooperation during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my parents, brother, sisters and friends for their
constant encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible.

Soumya Bansal

2
 INTRODUCTION

Administrative Law as a separate legal branch of legal discipline especially in

India came to be recognised only by the middle of the 20th century. Today the
administration is ubiquitous and impinges freely and deeply on every aspect of
an individuals life. Therefore, administrative law has become a major area for
study and research. With the growth of the huge global administrative space due
to globalisation of economy administrative law has developed global
dimensions.

Thus, four basic bricks of foundation of any administrative law may be

identified as: (i) to check abuse or detournment of administrative power; (ii) to
ensure to citizens an impartial determination of their disputes by officials; (iii)
to protect them from unauthorised encroachment on their rights and interests;
and (iv) to make those who exercise public power accountable to the people.

According to Diceys formulation, administrative law relates to that portion of a

nations legal system which determines the legal status and liabilities of all state
officials; secondly, it defines the rights and liabilities of private individuals in
their dealing with public officials; and thirdly, specifies the procedure by which
those rights and liabilities are enforced.

The rights that can be imposed under Article 226 must ordinarily be the right of
the petitioner himself, except in the case of habeas corpus and quo warranto.

3
The right to be enforced must ordinarily be personal right of the petitioner
himself.1 The person applying for the issue of the writ must have a locus standi.

The Courts recently have shown great flexibility and liberality of approach in
the matter of locus standi. It was realised by the courts that if the right to
challenge an administrative action is confined to the aggrieved person only,
many unauthorized and arbitrary actions of the bureaucracy may go
unchallenged as the aggrieved party may never go for a challenge on account of
several factors including its ignorance, poverty and disadvantaged position. The
Supreme Court therefore, took a lead in relaxing the rules of locus standi.

It is a fact that in India today, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Courts has grown so much that now courts are drawing their
identity and legitimacy largely from the exercise of this jurisdiction and their
traditional role has slipped into background.

The term PIL comes to us from American jurisdiction where it was designed to
provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests.
The necessity for this was the recognition that the ordinary market place for
legal services fail to provide such services to significant segments of the
American population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests
include poor, environmentalists, consumer, racial and ethnic minorities, and
others.

1
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044

4
PIL is a socio-economic movement generated by the judiciary to reach justice
especially to the weaker sections of the society for whom even after the two and
a half decades of independence, justice is a merely teasing illusion. In other
words, it is a long-arm strategy of the judiciary to reach justice to those who due
to socio-economic handicap cannot reach the doors of the court. Therefore, it is
a judge-led and judge-induced strategy that represents high benchmark of
judicial creativity and sensitivity to the problems of the weak and the
vulnerable. The idea of PIL came from actio popularis of the Roman
jurisprudence which allowed court access to every citizen in matters of public
wrongs. In India, inspiration to court for the development of this strategy came
from the oath which a judge takes to defend the Constitution wherein socio-
economic justice and equal court access are the prime principles. Thus, this
innovative strategy while providing easy access to justice to the weaker sections
of Indian society also provides a powerful tool in the hands of the public-
spirited individuals and social action groups for combatting exploitation and
injustice and securing for the underprivileged segment of society, their social
and economic entitlements.2

2
State of H.P. v. Parent of a Student of Medical College(1985) 3 SCC 169

5
 MEANING OF PIL

Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for
the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a
class of community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected.

The expression public interest if it is employed in a given statute is to be

understood and interpreted in the light of the entire scheme purpose and object
of the enactment but in the absence of the same it cannot be pressed into service
to confer any right upon a person who otherwise does not possess any such right
in law.3

S. Ratnavel Pandian,J. in Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary,4 said, Lexically the

expression Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of
law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public
or a class of community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their
legal rights or liabilities are affected.

During the last three decades judicial activism has opened up new dimensions
for the judicial process and has given a new hope to justice-starved millions. On
the question of legitimacy of the PIL and the significant importance of its
various aspects in the context of the present day felt needs, stimulated by the
3
Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, AIR 2009 SC 2894
4
AIR 1993 SC 892 at 906

6
emergence of a variety of new social improvements and social exigencies, this
court has laid down a long line of decisions, outlining the evolution of PIL, its
vital issues and problems relating to the focus, choice of relief methods, the
means and administrative strategy for litigation and the demand for distributive
justice for resolving the complicity of social problems and meaningful social
justice. Thus, the concept of PIL which has been and is being fostered by the
judicial activism that has become an increasingly important one setting up
valuable and respectable records, especially in the area of constitutional and
legal treatment for the unrepresented and underrepresented.5

The following characteristics of PIL are notable:

1. Petitions in PIL are filed on behalf of a group or class of persons.

2. Petitions are on behalf of such a group or class of persons, who on
account of their social, economic or other constraints cannot approach the
court for any legal remedy.
3. Action is initiated in PIL against irresponsible, illegal acts of
Government.
4. It is a new concept of jurisprudence which is developing its own
mechanism of justicing.
5. It is a law proposed and propounded by the Judges.
6. It gives rise to such causes of action where legal damage has been caused
to the public at large or a section of it.
7. Any public spirited person or member of an organisation, who initiated
public interest litigation, must have bona fide interest in social welfare,
his intensions must be free from malice and he should not start the action
under the influence of extraneous considerations.

5
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892 at p. 907

7
In Delhi Municipal Workers Union v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
another,6 the court held that PIL which has now come to occupy an important
field in the administrative law should not be publicity interest litigation or
politics interest litigation, there should be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and it cannot be invoked by a person or a body of
persons for the sake of further his or their personal causes or enmity.

6
AIR 2001 Delhi 68

8
 EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION IN INDIA

The seed of the concept of PIL was initially sown in India by Krishna Iyer, J. in
1976 (without assigning the terminology) in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v.
Abdulbhai.7 He, while disposing an industrial dispute in regard to the payment
of bonus, has observed:

Our adjectival branch of jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with

sophisticated litigant but the rural poor, the urban lay and the weaker societal
segment for which law would be an added terror if technical misdescription and
deficiencies in drafting, pleading and setting out the cause title create a secret
weapon to non-suit a part. Public interest is promoted by a spacious
construction of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and
conceptual latitudianism permits taking liberties with individualisation of the
right to invoke the higher courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable
number, particularly when they are weaker.

After the germination of the seeds of the concept of PIL in the soil of our
judicial system, it was nourished, nurtured and developed by the Apex Court by
a series of outstanding decisions. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v.
Union of India8 the terminology public interest litigation was used. In this
case, Krishna Iyer, J. made the following elaborate observations:

7
AIR 1976 SC 1455
8
AIR 1981 SC 344

9
 1) When corruption permeates the entire fabric of Government, legality is
the first casualty, for then the State power is exercised on grounds
unrelated to its nominal purpose.
2) In such a climate, a civil remedy for administrative wrong doing depends
upon the action of individual citizen.
3) A pragmatic approach to social justice warrants a liberal interpretation
of constitutional provisions (including Articles 32 and 226) so that the
court may carry out effective policing of the corridors of power until
other Ombudsman arrangements are made.
4) Courts function is limited to testing whether administrative action has
been fair and reasonable and is not mala fide.
5) Locus standi must be liberalized and ubi jus ibi remedium must be
enlarged to meet the public needs.
6) Law is a social auditor and this function can be put into action only when
someone with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction.
7) Restrictive rules of standing are antithesis to a healthy system of
administrative law.
8) Public minded citizens must be given opportunities to rely on legal
process and not be repelled by narrow and pedantic concept of locus
standi.
9) There might be false and frivolous suits, but when a person wishes to sue
merely out of public interest he should not be discouraged.
10) Justiceability of the issues and standing to agitate them are two
different things.

The learned Judge also cautioned that an officious busy body picking up a
stray dispute or idle pedlar of black mail litigation through abuse of the process
of the court cannot be permitted to pollute the Court instrumentality for private

10
objective. Only when a person with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction,
the Courts door should be opened.

The entire development of public interest litigation in India till today can be
attributed to the following four procedures:-

(1) Liberalization of the rule of locus standi,

(2) Treating letters as writ petitions,
(3) Suo moto intervention by the judge (M.P. Thakkar, J. converted a letter
to the Editor in a newspaper by a widow mentioning her plight because of
the non-payment of the provident fund family pension)
(4) Adoption of non-adversarial procedural of justice and appointment of
Commission.

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India,9 the Supreme Court has carried forward the
liberal view of standing so as to provide judicial redress for public injury arising
from breach of public duty or from violation of the Constitution or the law. In
this case, a few advocates were allowed to file a writ petition challenging the
appointment and transfer of the High Court judges. The petition filed by them
was held maintainable. The liberalised view of locus standi was a view for
extending justice to those who are economically and socially disadvantaged to
vindicate their rights before the courts. The court ruled that to insist on
traditional rule of locus standi in effect would mean denial of justice to the poor
masses and would be disastrous for rule of law for it would be open to state or
public authority to act with punity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of
public duty owned by it. Justice Bhagwati expressed his great concern to
innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing
access to justice to a large mass people who are denied their basic human rights

9
AIR 1982 SC 149

11
and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning. In habeas corpus case, the
court has further liberalized the rule of standing. In Kadra Pahadia v. State of
Bihar10 the letter written by Dr. Basudha Dhagamwar pointing out the sad
plight of the under trial prisoners languishing in jail for more than a decade was
treated to be a petition and the court proceeded to grant an appropriate remedy.
In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar,11 through a letter addressed by the Free
Legal Aid Committee, Hazaribagh to Justice Bhagwati, the judicial process was
set into motion and the attention of the court was drawn to the atrociously
illegal detention of certain prisoners in the Hazaribagh Central Jail for almost
two or three decades without any justification whatsoever, but for this letter
these forgotten specimens of humanity languishing in jail for years behind stone
walls and iron bars, deprived of freedom and liberty would have continued to
remain in jail without any hope of ever walking out of its forbidden
environment and breathing the fresh air of freedom.

10
AIR 1981 SC 934
11
AIR 1983 SC 399

12
 REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF PIL

The emergence of the concept of PIL in the Indian Legal System has been
succinctly explained by P.N. Bhagwati, J. in one of his articles contributed
under the caption Social Action Litigation. The Indian Experience reads thus:

The judiciary has to play a vital and important role not only in preventing and
remedying abuse and misuse of power and also eliminating exploitation and
injustice. For this purpose, it is necessary to make procedural innovations in
order to meet the challenges posed by this new role of an active and committed
judiciary. The summit judiciary in India, keenly alive to its social responsibility
and accountability to the people of the country, has liberalised itself from the
shackles of western thought, made innovative use of the power of judicial
review, forged new rules, devised new methods and fashioned new strategies
for the purpose of bringing justice for socially and economically disadvantaged
groups During the last four or five years however, judicial activism has
opened up new dimension for the judicial process and has given a new hope to
the justice starved millions of Indians.12

There are several factors which led to the growth of PIL as an instrument of
remedial justice in India and they can be described as under:

1. Article 38 of the Constitution ensures social, political and economic

justice and Article 39 embodies the jurisprudential doctrine of distributive
justice. In order to achieve these objectives Article 39-A directs the State
to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the

12
Vide Role of Judiciary in Plural Societies published in 1987

13
 basis of equality of opportunities and shall in particular, provide free legal
aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or any other way, to ensure that
opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason
of economic or other disabilities. The State must encourage and support
the participation of voluntary organisations or social action groups in
operating legal aid program. The legal aid program which is meant to
secure justice to the people cannot remain confined to the traditional
litigation oriented program but it should take into account the socio
economic conditions prevailing in the country and devise some dynamic
means of insuring justice. The system of PIL became essential in this
process so that justice could not be denied to any section of people on
account of its poverty, deprivation, ignorance and helplessness.

2. Justice Bhagwati in his report on National Judicature in 1977 advocated

for initiating the system of Representative suit in our country, which
should be made use of in case like consumer protection etc. In this respect
he pleaded for the relaxation and liberalisation of the locus standi rule.
Since then the judicial process has been revolutionized to promote PIL in
India.

3. New dimensions to the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium have been
discovered, which necessitated the filing of petitions by public spirited
persons or organisations for protecting public interest or extending legal
remedies to people at large or any segment thereof. In order to uphold this
kind of system, PIL has been accepted as a reality.

14
 4. In every social order the right to get an effective justice is a guaranteed
legal right. To eclipse this right in the name of technicalities of legal
procedure, or to create statutory bottlenecks for it, would amount to
negation of a healthy administrative order in our society. If any persons
petition is preliminary dismissed on the ground that he is actually not the
aggrieved person, the result would be hazardous because a large number
of cases of Government excesses and violation of the law by different
instrumentalities of the Government would remain unattended and un-
remedied as the real aggrieved person would never move the court for an
appropriate remedy due to the several constraints from which they are
suffering. This would be obviously in derogation of public interest. In
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India13 the Court allowed the petition by
a stranger even when his personal interest was not involved in the matter
in any way.

5. The Public Interest Litigation is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement
through which infringement of legal or fundamental rights of the poor
could be redressed at the Court of Law. Ours is a poor country where
nearly forty per cent of the population lives below poverty line and the
next forty per cent just on poverty line. In these conditions it cannot be
expected of them to come forward for a judicial remedy even in cases of
transgressions upon the right, be it fundamental or legal. The system of
PIL is an attempt to ensure justice to them by rendering the remedial
guarantees of the Constitution a reality. In this regard, Justice P.N.
Bhagwati rightly remarked:
The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the
poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their
13
AIR 1989 SC 2039

15
 character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They
must be sensitized to the need of doing justice to the large masses of
people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society
for generations. It is through public interest litigation that the problems of
the poor are now coming to the forefront and the entire theatre of the law
is changing. It holds out great possibilities for the future.14

6. In the modern times judicial process and the proceedings of the Court are
adversial, harsh and embarrassing in nature. It takes a long time to finally
dispose of the matter. The rules of pleading and evidence have become
complex and dilatory. The courts, therefore, keeping away from the
existing judicial procedure followed the system of public interest
litigation for simplifying the process of justice.

7. The practice of taking suo moto cognizance of the complaints and

grievances of the people and cases of excesses and injustices published in
the newspapers, has given new direction to the jurisdiction of the Court
which paved the way for a new process of administration of justice in
India. This has given a new lease of life and a ray of hope to the
aggrieved persons because, for multiple reasons, they remained unwilling
to approach the Court or choose to remain anonymous as their exploiters
or the administrative authorities doing the injustice to them enjoy and
exert gigantic powers. In this process many cases such as deplorable
conditions of under trials in jails,15 pitiable conditions of minors put in

14
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473
15
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928

16
 protective homes and orphanages,16 custodial violence with the accused
women17 sexual exploitation of blind young girls18 came to the notice of
the court, which otherwise could have never come before it, and
necessary remedial directions were issued by the Court.

8. The liberalisation of the locus standi rule is the foundation of public

interest litigation. It was widely realised by the courts that if the right to
challenge the wrongful acts of the Government is confined to the
aggrieved persons only, many arbitrary unjust and illegal acts of
bureaucracy would remain unattended and their victims will continue to
suffer from ill consequences of such acts. The concept of PIL emerged
out of these considerations.

16
Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 2211
17
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Centre v. U.P. AIR 1985 SC 652
18
Prafulla Kumar v. Orissa AIR 1989 SC 1783

17
 IMPORTANCE OF PIL

The Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India19 reiterated

its justification for participative justice and the need for liberalisation of the
locus standi rule. In the instant case, the petitioner is an organisation dedicated
to the cause of release of bonded labourers in the country. He made the survey
of some of the stone quarries in Faridabad district and found that there were a
large number of labourers from Maharashtra, U.P., M.P. and Rajasthan who
were working in these quarries under inhuman and intolerable conditions and
many of them were bonded labourers. The petitioner addressed a letter to the
Supreme Court pointing out the abject conditions of the bondage of a large
number of labourers for about last ten years. The petitioner also set out the
various provisions and the statutes which were not being implemented or
observed in regard to the labourers working in these quarries.

The Court held that where a member of the public acting bona fide moves the
court for enforcement of a fundamental right on behalf of a person or class of
persons who on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position cannot approach the Court for relief, such member of the
public may move the Court even by just writing a letter, because it would not be
right or fair to expect a person acting pro bono publico to incur expenses out of
his own pocket preferring a regular writ petition for the enforcement of the
rights of the poor and deprived sections of the community and in such a case a
letter addressed by him can legitimately be regarded as an appropriate
proceeding.

19
AIR 1984 SC 802

18
The Court, in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India20 again
treated as a letter addressed to it as a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution wherein complaints about prevalence of bonded labour system and
inhuman conditions of workers in stone quarries in certain areas of Faridabad
district were made out. The Court noted with concern that the various directions
given in regard to it in 1984 were not carried out. The court further directed the
State Government to act as welfare state and ensure that workers are continued
in work with improved conditions.

Further in State of H.P. v. A parent of a student of Medical College,21 the

Supreme Court maintained that public interest litigation is a weapon which has
to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be
extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance it
does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive
and Legislature. The Court cannot give direction to Legislature or the Executive
to initiate legislation with respect to any matter (ragging in the present context).

Where a person writes a letter to the Court so as to be treated as a petition, it is

his duty to disclose his identity. If it is not done, cognizance of such a letter is
an illegality. The Judge laid down the following constraints in the matter of
Public Interest Litigations:-

a. The underlying purpose of PIL is not to mock at the Legislature or the

Executive. In PIL the courts should never try to usurp the function
assigned to the executive or the Legislature. They cannot even indirectly
require the Executive to introduce a particular legislation or Legislature

20
Ibid
21
AIR 1985 SC 910

19
 to pass it. Nor should they assume to themselves a supervisory role over
the law making activities of the Executive or the Legislature.
b. A letter written by an aggrieved person or by a public spirited citizen of a
social action group can surely be treated as a writ petition but the identity
of the person of the person writing such a letter cannot be concealed.
Non disclosure of the identity of the petitioner would render it difficult
for the State or its agents against whom the relief is sought to verify the
authenticity of the petitioner and the credibility of the case brought by
him.
c. In PIL the Court can intervene only when the executive is remised in
discharging its obligations under the Constitution or the law but it cannot
compel the Government to introduce an ameliorative legislation.

In Sheela Barse v. Union of India22 we find another example of social action

litigation. In this case the petition is moved by Bombay based social worker and
journalist seeking release of children below 16 years detained in jails,
production of complete information of children in jails, information as to the
existence of the Juvenile Courts, homes and schools and for a direction that
District Judges should visit jails to ensure that the children are looked after
properly when in custody. The apex Court issued necessary directions to the
High Court to ensure the compliance of directions by the District Judges in
respective of above information.

In the case of D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar23 it is noteworthy that the Court
allowed a Professor of Political Science to file a writ petition challenging the

22
AIR 1986 SC 1773
23
AIR 1987 SC 579

20
validity of the practice of the State of Bihar in promulgating in re-promulgating
Ordinances on a massive scale without letting them replaced by the Acts of the
legislature. The Court held that he had sufficient interest to maintain a petition
under Article 32 even as member of public because it is the right of every
citizen to insist that he should be governed by laws made in accordance with
Constitution and not law made by the executive in violation of the constitutional
provisions.

There came several cases in 1987 which expanded the scope of public interest
litigation to environmental protection, child welfare and protection of public
health, etc. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India24 popularly known as Oleum Gas
Leakage case, one M.C. Mehta moved the Supreme Court under Article 32
praying for orders against reopening of certain plants in Sriram Food and
Fertilizers Industries manufacturing and possessing hazardous and lethal
chemicals and gas, passing danger to health and life of workmen and people
living in neighbourhood. The Court loudly appreciated the action of the
petitioner in bringing the public interest litigation and held that pending
consideration of the issue whether the caustic chlorine plant should be directed
to be shifted and relocated at some other place, the caustic chlorine plant should
be directed to be shifted and relocated at some other place, the caustic chlorine
plant should be allowed to be restarted by the management subject to certain
stringent conditions which were specified.

In second set of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India25 case where the writ was
moved by the Legal Aid and Advice Board and Bar Association for closure of

24
(1987) 1 SCC 395
25
AIR 1987 SC 1086

21
certain units of a company on the ground of health hazard, the Court proceeded
to award compensation in cases of violation of fundamental right to life
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The victims of gas leak were
allowed to claim damages through public interest litigation. In this case, Justice
Bhagwati allayed the fear of Justice Pathak and Justice Sen, expressed in
Bandhua Mukti Morcha case and said that even if a letter is addressed to an
individual Judge of the Court it should be entertained, provided, of course, it is
by or on behalf of a person in custody or on behalf of a woman or a child or a
class of deprived or disadvantaged persons.

Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India and others,26 a PIL
petition alleging environmental pollution caused by the private industrial units
was filed by an environmentalist organisation, not for issuance of writ against
such units but against Union of India, State Government and State Pollution
Control Board to compel them to perform their statutory duties on the ground
that their failure to carry on such duties violated rights guaranteed under Article
21 of the residents of the affected area. The Supreme Court held the petition
may be maintainable and the Court could after ascertaining that the alleged
industrial units were responsible for causing ecological fraternity in the area
directed the authorities concerned to perform their statutory duties.

Sheela Barse v. Secretary Children Aid Society27 is another case where the
petitioner through a letter petition brought before the Court several allegations
against the working of the New Observation Home run by the Children Aid
Society, Bombay. There was an inordinate delay in repatriation or restoration of

26
(1996) 3 SCC 212
27
(1987) 3 SCC 50

22
children to their parent in respect of whom such orders were made by the
juvenile court. The Court observed that the children should not be made to stay
long in the Home and laid down several suggestion for the improvement in the
working of the observation Homes.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and others28 is major PIL case on the rights
of arrestee. The Supreme Court laid down certain basic requirements to be
followed in all the cases or arrest or detention upto legal provisions are made in
that behalf as a measure to prevent custodial violence.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India29 another important case on the enforcement

of statutory provisions regarding prevention of nuisance caused by the pollution
of the River Ganga, the Court issued directions to the Nagar Mahapalika of
Kanpur to comply with the statutory provisions under the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Here the petitioner was not a riparian
owner. He was person interested in protecting the lives of the people who made
use of the water flowing in the river Ganga. The nuisance caused by the
pollution of the river is a public nuisance. The petition was therefore entertained
as public interest litigation and directed the appropriate authorities to take all the
reasonable actions for the prevention of nuisance in order to enable the riparian
owners to use the clean water.

28
AIR 1997 SC 3017
29
AIR 1988 SC 2217

23
Yet another important case, namely, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
v. State of U.P.,30 has been decided by the Supreme Court on the issue of
environmental protection. The action initiated through a letter from the Rural
Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun complaining of the unauthorised
and illegal mining in the Mussorie- Dehradun belt which adversely affected the
ecology of the area and led to environmental disorder. The Court directed
stoppage of mining in Doon Valley area and vacated all the orders and decrees
relating to renewal of disputed mining leases in this connection.

Parmanand Katria v. Union of India,31 is another important announcement of

the Supreme Court on public interest litigation. Here the petitioner, a human
right activist filed an application under Article 32 of the Constitution asking for
a direction to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment
should instantaneously be given medical aid to preserve life and thereafter the
procedural criminal law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid negligent
death. In the event of breach of such direction, apart from any action that may
be taken negligence, appropriate compensation should be admissible. He
appended to the writ petition a report entitled Law helps the injured to die
published in the Hindustan Times. In the said publication it was alleged that a
scooterist was knocked down by a speeding car. Seeing him profusely bleeding,
a passer-by picked him up and took him to the nearest hospital. The doctors
refused to attend on the injured and told the man that he should have taken the
patient to a named different hospital located some 20 kilometres away
authorised to handle medico legal cases. The Samaritan carried the victim, lost
no time to approach the other hospital but before he could reach, the victim
succumbed to his injuries.

30
AIR 1988 SC 2187
31
AIR 1989 SC 2039

24
In this case, the Court observed that the article 21 of the Constitution casts the
obligation on the State to preserve life. Accordingly the doctors at the
Government hospitals are duty bound to extend medical existence for
preserving life. Every doctor whether at Government Hospital or otherwise has
a professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting
life. The matter is extremely urgent and brooks no delay to remind every doctor
of his total obligation and assure him of the position that he does not contravene
the law of the land by proceeding to treat the injured victim on his appearance
before him either by himself or being carried by others.

25
 MISUSE OF PIL AND THE LATER
DEVELOPMENT

The growing use of public interest litigation has brought a new hope to the
victims of administrative injustices and criminal negligence of the government
through the process of the participative justice. But there may develop some
unhealthy trends of misuse of this process which the Supreme Court pointed out
in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India32 in the following words:

. But we must hasten to make it clear that the individual who moves the
Court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a
view to vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for the purpose of
personal gain or private profit out of political motivation or other oblique
consideration, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of
such person and must reject his application at the threshold..

In Krishna Kant Jaiswal v. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University,

Varanasi33 the Allahbad High Court altered against the probable frivilious
litigations which may get berths in this process. The Court observed that public
interest litigation has come to stay as one of the species of litigation in which
redress may be found from the Courts of law. However, this does not confer a
general and untrammelled right to indulge in the frivolous litigation without any
genuine cause of action and the necessity of seeking redress of some real
grievance. Consequently, while recognising such litigation certain minimum
conditions must be satisfied before the courts shall lend assistance to such
32
AIR 1982 SC 149
33
AIR 1984 All 350

26
litigant asking for relief. The motives of personal vendetta political or otherwise
shall also be looked upon with eminent disfavour before the Court entertains
such writ petitions.

The Supreme Court in Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India34 made an

important pronouncement by holding that no petition can be filed under Article
32 of the Constitution as public interest litigation in criminal cases. Although it
was pleaded by the petitioner that this PIL, commenced by an act of recognised
political party who had a genuine interest in the future of the convicts, should be
entertained, the plea was turned down and it was declared by the Court that the
petitioner being a third party is totally a stranger to the prosecution and has no
locus standi but he can challenge the sentence awarded to the convicts.

In a decision of Supreme Court in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of

India35 Chief Justice Rangnath Misra said thus:

I am prepared to assume, may, concede that public activists should also be

permitted to espouse the course 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. Those who are acquainted with the jurisprudence and enjoy
social privilege as men educated in law owe an obligation to the community of
educating it properly and allowing the judicial process to continue unsoiled.

Justice K.N. Singh expressed his opinion in Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar36
in the following words:

34
AIR 1993 SC 280
35
AIR 1992 SC 248

27
PIL cannot be invoked by a person or body of persons to satisfy his or her
personal grudge and enmity. If such petitions under Article 32, are entertained it
would amount to abuse of process of the Court, preventing speedy remedy to
other genuine petitioners from this court. Personal interests cannot be enforced
through the process of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the garb
of a PIL. It is the duty of this Court to discourage such petitions and to ensure
that the course of justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants
by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for personal matters
under the garb of PIL

The Patna High Court in President, Mahavidyalaya Siksha Sudhar Sangharsh

Samiti v. State of Bihar and others37 dismissed the petition filed in the name of
PIL, praying the court for passing the order of vacation of police force from
college premises of the A.N. College, Patna. The unruly elements were
spreading terror in the college campus, extracting money from innocent students
in admissions and examinations, insulting teaching and non-teaching staff,
Principal attacked with bombs and pistols. All these situations made it necessary
that the Central Reserve Police Force camps inside the college campus to
restore law and order. The petition filed by the President of the aforesaid samiti
was held to be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner was
neither a student nor a parent of any student of the college. It was held that he
had no locus standi. It was clearly an instance of frivolous PIL.

Where in a PIL some official documents had been annexed thereto but no
indication was given as to how petitioners came in possession thereof, frivolous

36
AIR 1991 SC 420
37
AIR 1995 Patna 7.

28
pleas were taken to explain such possession. The Supreme Court directed that in
such cases High Courts should not only dismiss petitions but also should impose
exemplary costs.38

In Chettriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh39

the Supreme Court entertained a letter petition on the alleged environmental
pollution caused by the two industrial units at Sarnath, Varanasi. Later on, the
court discovered a long history of enmity between the so called protectors of
public interest and proprietors of industrial units. It was also found that prima
facie the norms laid down in the Air/Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Acts, 1981 and 1974 have been followed. Rejecting the petition the
Court cautioned against the abuse of PIL and said that this weapon as a safe
guard must be utilised and invoked by the Court with great deal of
circumspection and caution.

In S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda,40 the Supreme Court observed that on
issues of constitutional laws, litigants who can lay no claim to have expert
knowledge in that field should refrain from filing petitions, which are often
drafted in casual and cavalier manner giving an extempore appearance not
having, had even a second look. Lastly, it must also be borne in mind that no
one has the right to waiver of the locus standi rule and the Court should permit
it only when it is satisfied that the carriage of proceedings is in the competent
hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is not
moved by other extraneous considerations.

38
Dattaraj Huthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 540
39
(1990) 4 SCC 449
40
AIR 1997 SC 273

29
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in A.G. Prayagi v. State of M.P. and others,
turned down the petitioners claim to invoke PIL because the petition suffered
from mala fides and frivolity. The petitioner was a public servant under
suspension facing serious charges of corruption. He moved the petition to
remove the Cabinet Minister and high officers of Public Health Department for
misuse of public funds and powers. The petition is filed by the petitioner as a
tax payer holding it to be a litigation of public interest. The Court held that the
petitioner has no locus standi as the petition is not filed bona fide but to defame
his superiors.

In State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation and others,41

the Supreme Court has expressed the view that doctrine of res judicata is
applicable to PIL where the previous litigation is in the public interest and a
bona fide litigation and matter directly and substantially in the issue of previous
litigation operates as judgement. Judgement in rem also bars subsequent PIL
on principle of res judicata. The Calcutta High Court further observed that the
principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply equally to
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In Santosh Sood v. Gajendra Singh42, the Supreme Court has expressed the
view that if a civil suit was pending which may or may not be frivolous,
ordinarily the High Court should not have entertained a PIL. On the other hand
if it was found that the civil court was not proceeding with the matter as
expeditiously as it should have appropriate directions could have been issued in
that behalf.

41
AIR 2006 SC 1846
42
AIR 2010 SC 593

30
The Delhi High Court in Vinod Kumar Kanojia v. Union of India43 recently
turned down the petitioners claim to invoke public interest litigation as it
suffered from mala fides. In this case, the petitioner has preferred PIL on behalf
of the Hindustan Kanojia Organisation (a community of dhobis), Schedule
Caste in India after coming to know from a news that a film in the name of
Dhobi Ghat is going to be released and the name of the film has affected the
sensitivity and created a dent in the feeling of the community. The court held
that Dhobi Ghat is a description of a place where clothes are washed. It has
place oriented description and naming a movie of this nature cannot be
offensive to the caste in question.

In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India44 the court has expressed the view that if
the order of PIL passed by the court it would be operative in rem. It was neither
expected of the court nor is it the requirement of law that the court should have
issued notice to all persons likely to be affected by the order.

43
AIR 2011 Del. 73
44
AIR 2012 SC 3230

31
 CONCLUSION

The right to enforce Human Rights as provided under the Constitution of India
is constitutionally protected. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue
writs for enforcement of such rights. Similarly Article 32 of the Constitution
gives the same powers to the Supreme Court. A new approach has emerged in
the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the objective to bring justice
within the reach of the poor and the disadvantageous section of the society. In
the recent past the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court have from
time to time given far reaching and innovative judgements to protect the Human
Rights. Public Interest Litigation has heralded a new era of Human Rights
promotion and protection in India. The greatest contribution of Public Interest
Litigation has been to enhance the accountability of the Governments towards
the Human Rights of the poor. Public Interest Litigation has undoubtedly
produced astonishing results which were unthinkable two decades ago. Public
Interest Litigation has rendered a signal service in the areas of Prisoners
Rights, development of compensatory jurisprudence for Human Rights
violation, Environmental protection, bonded labour eradication and prohibition
of Child Labour and many others. A review of the decisions of the Indian
Judiciary regarding the protection of Human Rights indicates that the judiciary
has been playing a role of saviour in situations where the executive and
legislature have failed to address the problems of the people. The Supreme
Court has come forward to take corrective measures and provide necessary
directions to the executive and legislature,. However while taking note of the
contributions of judiciary one must not forget that the judicial pronouncements
cannot be a protective umbrella for inefficiency and laxity of executive and
legislature. It is the foremost duty of the society and all its organs to provide

32
justice and correct institutional and human errors affecting basic needs, dignity
and liberty of human beings. Fortunately India has pro-active judiciary. It can
thus be aspired that in the times ahead, peoples right to live, as a true human
beings will further be strengthened.

From the perusal of the above contribution it is evident that the Indian Judiciary
has been very sensitive and alive to the protection of the Human Rights of the
people. It has, through judicial activism forged new tools and devised new
remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious
Human Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

33
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Lectures on Administrative Law Dr. U.P.D. Kesari- Twentieth Edition,

2014
Public Interest Litigation- Legal Aid and Lok Adalats- Mamta Rao- Third
Edition, 2010
Administrative Law- I.P. Massey- Eastern Book Company
Principles of Administrative Law- M.P. Jain- Fourth Edition, 2001

Articles:

Public Interest Litigation in India: Implications for Law and

Development- Sarbani Sen
Public Interest Litigation: A Conceptual Framework- Manas Ranjan
Samantaray , Mritunjay Sharma
Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems- Ashok H. Desai, S.
Muralidhar

Internet:

www.scconline.co.in
www.indiakanoon.com

34