Public Interest Litigation By Madhu

Public Interest Litigation

Meaning of public interest litigation Public interest litigation describes legal actions brought to protect or enforce rights enjoyed by members of the public or large parts of it.

Meaning of public interest litigation BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY “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 class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”

Why public interest litigation • • • • •

In most developing countries, the legal regime of environmental laws is weak and the laws are difficult to enforce and sometimes ambiguous. Public interest litigation has helped bridge this gap.

Why public interest litigation • • • • • • • • • •

Public interest litigation is important where the government is not willing to promote/protect the environment. The government may not be willing to prosecute those who violate environmental laws and at times the government is a violator of environmental laws. In some jurisdictions an injunction can be brought to compel or stop the government from degrading the environment.

Why public interest litigation

•

In most developing countries governments lack resources to prosecute and investigate all the criminal cases that take place within its jurisdiction. Public interest litigation enables individuals to bring action on behalf of the community, a role the

•

government may not play.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Why public interest litigation Where criminal remedies are not enough, e.g. a fine may be too small compared to the amount of environmental degradation. A civil suit is well suited for orders such as restitution and compensation which may not be provided for by criminal laws of a country.

•

•

•

•

Why public interest litigation Where criminal remedies are not enforceable, e.g. where a crime is committed by a company and yet the punishment for the crime is imprisonment, it becomes hard to punish the company.

The matter must require a legal remedy and be of public interest, which means it must: 

 



Affect a significant number of people not just the individual or; raise matters of broad public concern or; impact on disadvantaged or marginalized group, and it must be a legal matter which requires addressing pro bono publico (‘for the common good’)

An action can be brought for public interest litigation under the following    



Environmental degradation Violation of basic human rights of the poor Content or conduct of government policy Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights

When and how to File a PIL 1.Make an informed decision to file a case. 2.Consult all affected interest groups who are possible allies. 3.Be careful in filing a case because i.Litigation can be expensive. ii.Litigation can be time consuming. iii.Litigation can take away decision making capability/strength from communities. iv.An adverse decision can affect the strength of the movement. v.Litigation involvement can divert the attention of the community away from the real issues.

When and how to File a PIL 4.If you have taken the decision i.Collect all the relevant information ii.Be meticulous in gathering detail for use in the case. If you plan to use photographs, retain the negatives and take an affidavit from the photographer. Retain bills. iii.Write to the relevant authorities and be clear about your demands. iv.Maintain records in an organized fashion. v.Consult a lawyer on the choice of forum. vi.Engage a competent lawyer. If you are handling the matter yourself make sure you get good legal advice on the drafting. vii.A PIL can be filed only by a registered organization. If you are unregistered, please file the PIL in the name of an office bearer/member in his/her personal capacity. viii.You may have to issue a legal notice to the concerned parties/authorities before filing a PIL. Filing a suit against the government would require issuing a notice to the concerned officer department at least two months prior to filing.

Public Interest Litigation - Survey 1997 - 1998 The marked increase in the number of reported decisions in PIL cases, both in the High Courts as well in the Supreme Court, is testimony to the ever expanding jurisdiction of the court in this branch of the law. While issues that have been dealt with in the past continued to engage the courts, new ones appeared too. The issue of public accountability continued to engage the courts’. Continuing mandamus' was forged by the court in monitoring the progress of criminal investigations. There was also a decided departure from the past where the court would conclude a case hoping that the government would pick up the thread thereafter. The PILs in the years under review witnessed a `law making' and `policy delineating' court....

Important Public Interest Litigation Cases

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs Union of India ( A.I.R.. 1982 , S C 1473). The court now permits Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance of " Public spirited citizens" for the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person or group of persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach court for relief. Public interest litigation is a part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps. In the Judges Transfer Case - AIR 1982, SC 149: Court held Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of public having sufficient interest for public injury arising from violation of legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is absolutely necessary for maintaining Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. It is a settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, heart and with clean objectives.

Shiram Food & Fertilizer case

AIR (1986) 2 SCC 176 SC through Public Interest Litigation directed the Co. Manufacturing hazardous & lethal chemical and gases posing danger to life and health of workmen & to take all necessary safety measures before re-opening the plant.

M.C Mehta Vs Union of India

AIR (1988) 1 SCC 471 - In a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions , as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

Parmanand Katara Vs Union of India

AIR 1989, SC 2039 :- Supreme Court held in the Public Interest Litigation filed by a human right activist fighting for general public interest that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical profession to give medical aid to every injured citizen as soon as possible without waiting for any procedural formalities.

PIL Cases in the 1970s Kamgar Sabha vs Abdul Bhai In Mumbai (1976) 3 SCC 832 court gave a soothing decision in this historic case, introducing the doctrine of Judicial Activism. Justice Krishna Iyer stated: “Test Litigation, representative actions, pro bono publico and the like forms of legal proceedings are in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural short-comings”.

PIL Cases in the 1970s Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration In 1978 4 SCC 494 the Supreme Court dealt with the right to protection against solitary confinement and putting undertrials in fetters for an unlimited duration of time. ”It observed that “the operation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 may be pared down for a prisoner but not puffed out altogether…So also, locomotion may be limited by the needs of imprisonment but binding hand and foot, with hoops of steel, every man or women sentenced for a term is doing violence to Part III”.

PIL Cases in the 1980s Municipal Council, Ratlam vs Vardichan [(1980) 4 SCC 162] is a path-finder in the field of people's involvement in matters of public importance. The court accepted the locus standi of the citizens of a ward to seek directions against the Municipality for taking remedial action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and putting an end to the nuisance caused due to open drains, pits and public excretion in the absence of lavatories.

PIL Cases in the 1980s Hussainara Khatoon Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar One of the earliest cases in the subject of Public Interest Litigation is the famous Hussainara Khatoon case. There were a series of cases entitled Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in 1980 (1) SCC 81, 1980 (1) SCC 91, 1980 (1) SCC 93, 1980 (1) SCC 98, 1980 (1) SCC 108 and 1980 (1) SCC 115. These were filed by an advocate in the Supreme Court of India by way of a writ petition, in which the plight of helpless undertrials, who were behind bars for decades, for a period much more than they would have undergone in case of conviction, was brought to the notice of the court. It observed that “even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21”.

PIL Cases in the 1990s Subhash Kumar Vs State of Bihar In Subhash Kumar Vs State of Bihar [(1991) 1 SCC 598] the Supreme Court held that the “right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.”

PIL Cases in the 1990s Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan In Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241], which is the celebrated case laying down guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment of women in the workplace, the court focused its attention in “assisting in finding suitable methods for realisation of the true concept of 'gender equality'; and to prevent sexual harassment of working women in all work places through judicial process, to fill the vacuum in existing legislation.”

PIL Cases 2000 onwards Balco Employees’ Union Vs Union of India In Balco Employees’ Union Vs Union of India and Others (2002) 2 SCC 333 dealing with the question of judicial interference in economic policy decisions, the Supreme Court emphasised that “in the sphere of economic policy or reforms the court is not the appropriate forum… Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory duties.” It also clarified that Public Interest Litigation was intended to mean nothing more than what the words themselves said, namely, "litigation in the interest of the public”.

PIL Cases 2000 onwards Dattaraj Nattuji Thaware Vs State of Maharashtra In Dattaraj Nattuji Thaware Vs State of Maharashtra 2005 (1) SCC 590, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the recent trend to the following effect: “Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law… (should not become)…'publicity interest litigation' or 'private interest litigation' or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend, i.e. 'paise income litigation'. In order to discourage the practice,the court stressed the necessity of imposing ‘exemplary” costs on people for bringing frivolous petitions.

PILs on Civil Liberties T.V. Vatheeswaran Vs State of Tamilnadu In T.V. Vatheeswaran Vs State of Tamilnadu [(1983) 2 SCC 68] the Supreme Court held a prisoner on death row has a right to move the court for quashing of the sentence in case of unreasonable delay in the carrying out of the sentence.

PILs on Civil Liberties Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti Vs State of West Bengal In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti Vs State of West Bengal [(1996) 4 SCC 37] the Supreme Court observed that “Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are dutybound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life.”

PILs on Civil Liberties M.H. Hoskot Vs State of Maharashtra The principle that free legal services to the poor and the needy was an essential element of any reasonable, fair and just procedure under Article 21 was upheld in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra 1978 (3) SCC 544

Thank You

By M.Madhu Prakash