Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India: History, Evolution, Features & Key Cases

Table of contents

1. Introduction 2. Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India 3. Features of Public Interest Litigation 4. Scope of Public Interest Litigation 5. Principles of Public Interest Litigation 6. Guidelines for admitting Public Interest Litigation 7. Constitutional Basis of PIL 8. Key Judicial Pronouncements in PIL 9. Significance of PIL in Social Transformation 10. Challenges and Criticism of PIL 11. Conclusion

Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to the legal practice where any individual or group can approach the judiciary to seek justice in cases where public interest is at stake. The uniqueness of PIL lies in its departure from traditional legal norms, especially the relaxation of the locus standi principle, which traditionally limited the ability to bring a case to only those directly affected. PIL allows any individual, NGO, or group to file a petition on behalf of those whose rights are infringed but are unable to approach the court due to economic or social constraints.

PIL is a strategic tool for advancing justice, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring the state performs its duties under the law. It opens the judiciary to the marginalized and underprivileged sections of society, making it a potent instrument for social transformation.

PIL is also known variously as Social Action Litigation (SAL), Social Interest Litigation (SIL) and Class Action Litigation (CAL).

In other words, the real purposes of PIL are:

1. vindication of the rule of law,
   
   
2. facilitating effective access to justice to the socially and economically weaker sections of the society, and
   
   
3. meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights.

Historical Context of PIL in India

The genesis of PIL in India can be traced back to the 1970s, a period of significant judicial evolution. Before this, the Indian judiciary largely adhered to the traditional adversarial system, which constrained access to justice. However, with changing socio-political dynamics and an increasing realization of the courts’ potential to foster social justice, the concept of PIL was born.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were instrumental in promoting PIL during the post-Emergency period, advocating for greater judicial intervention to protect fundamental rights, especially for those who were poor, uneducated, or marginalized. The landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which dealt with the inhumane treatment of undertrial prisoners, is often credited with marking the advent of PIL in India. This case established that anyone could file a PIL on behalf of a disadvantaged person or group, highlighting the court’s proactive role in ensuring justice.

By the early 1980s, PIL became an established judicial tool, transforming the courts into arenas for addressing public grievances. It was widely used to bring attention to matters like environmental protection, human rights, gender justice, and labor conditions.

Thus, the introduction of PIL fundamentally altered the landscape of Indian jurisprudence, aligning the judiciary with the goals of social justice, equality, and rule of law.

Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India

Pre-1970s Judicial Approach

Before the 1970s, the Indian judiciary followed a more conservative and restrictive approach. Courts strictly adhered to the traditional doctrine of locus standi, meaning only those who were directly and personally affected by a legal issue could file a petition. This approach often excluded vulnerable and marginalized sections of society who lacked the resources or access to approach the courts, leaving their grievances unaddressed. Additionally, the judiciary functioned as a passive institution, resolving only disputes brought before it, without actively engaging in social or economic issues.

Cases related to the violation of fundamental rights were typically limited to individual grievances, with little emphasis on broader public issues or structural injustices affecting large sections of society. This resulted in a legal system that was often disconnected from the realities of poverty, inequality, and systemic injustice.

Pioneering Cases of Public Interest Litigation

The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) began to take shape in the late 1970s, driven by a shift in judicial philosophy towards activism and social justice. This era saw a growing recognition that the courts could play a pivotal role in addressing socio-economic inequalities and ensuring that justice was accessible to all, not just the privileged few.

1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
   This landmark case is considered one of the first instances of PIL in India. The case was filed to address the inhumane treatment of undertrial prisoners in Bihar, many of whom had been languishing in jail for periods longer than the maximum punishment for their offenses. Justice P.N. Bhagwati emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental right, and the court ordered the release of prisoners whose detention violated their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
   
   
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
   Also known as the Judges' Transfer Case, this case expanded the concept of locus standi by allowing citizens, lawyers, and social groups to file petitions in matters of public concern. The Supreme Court ruled that any member of the public acting bona fide could bring an action in cases where public interest or constitutional rights are at stake, even if they were not personally affected.

Together, these cases reflected a transformative shift in the judiciary's role in Indian society. The courts embraced PIL as a tool to address structural injustices, protect fundamental rights, and promote social change, making justice accessible to those who were previously unable to secure it.

Features of Public Interest Litigation

The various features of the PIL are explained below:

1. PIL is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity.
   
   
2. PIL is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation.
   
   
3. PIL is brought before the Court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest.
   
   
4. PIL demands that violations of constitutional and legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed.
   
   
5. PIL is essentially a co-operative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or Public Authority, and the Court to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them.
   
   
6. In PIL, the role held by the Court is more assertive than in traditional actions; it is creative rather than passive and it assumes a more positive attitude in determining acts.
   
   
7. Though in PIL court enjoys a degree of flexibility unknown to the trial of traditional private law litigations, whatever the procedure adopted by the court it must be procedure known to judicial tenets and characteristics of a judicial proceeding.
   
   
8. In a PIL, unlike traditional dispute resolution mechanism, there is no determination on adjudication of individual rights.

Scope of Public Interest Litigation

In 1998, the Supreme Court formulated a set of guidelines to be followed for entertaining letters or petitions received by it as PIL. These guidelines were modified in 1993 and 2003.

According to them, the letters or petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as PIL:

1. Bonded labour matters
   
   
2. Neglected children
   
   
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual cases)
   
   
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for pre-mature release and seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail, transfer, release on personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right
   
   
5. Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody
   
   
6. Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning, rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.
   
   
7. Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co-villagers. or by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and economically backward classes
   
   
8. Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forest and wild life and other matters of public importance
   
   
9. Petitions from riot-victims
   
   
10. Family pension
    The cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as PIL:
    1. Landlord-tenant matters
       
       
    2. Service matter and those pertaining to pension and gratuity
       
       
    3. Complaints against Central/ State Government departments and Local Bodies except those relating to item numbers. ( 1 ) - ( 10 ) above
       
       
    4. Admission to medical and other educational institution
       
       
    5. Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate Courts

Principles of Public Interest Litigation

The Supreme Court evolved the following principles in regard to PIL:

1. The Court in exercise of powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantaged position and thus not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of such disadvantaged people and direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises.
   
   
2. When the issues of public importance, enforcement of the fundamental rights of large number of people vis-à-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State are raised, the court treat a letter or a telegram as a PIL. In such cases, the court relaxes the procedural laws and also the law relating to pleadings.
   
   
3. Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the court will not hesitate to step in to invoke Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights which provide for a reasonable and fair trial.
   
   
4. The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, deprived, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for violation of any constitutional or legal right.
   
   
5. When the Court is prima facie satisfied about violation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.
   
   
6. Although procedural laws apply on PIL cases, the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition and also facts and circumstances of the case.
   
   
7. The dispute between two warring groups purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a PIL.
   
   
8. However, in an appropriate case, although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.
   
   
9. The Court in special situations may appoint Commission or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Commission.
   
   
10. The Court will not ordinarily transgress into a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated.
    
    
11. The Court would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Court although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
    
    
12. Ordinarily the High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of PIL questioning constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule.

Guidelines for admitting Public Interest Litigation

The PIL has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law. It should not be allowed to become 'Publicity Interest Litigation' or 'Politics Interest Litigation' or 'Private Interest Litigation' or 'Paisa Interest Litigation' or 'Middle-class Interest Litigation' (MIL).

The Supreme Court, in this context, observed: "PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re- emphasise the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court."

Therefore, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for checking the misuse of the PIL:

1. The court must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL field for extraneous considerations.
   
   
2. Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with PIL, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL filed and discouraging PIL filed with oblique motives.
   
   
3. The Court should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining the PIL.
   
   
4. The Court shall be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of petition before entertaining the PIL.
   
   
5. The Court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.
   
   
6. The Court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
   
   
7. The Court before entertaining the PIL must ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm and public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing PIL.
   
   
8. The Court should also ensure that the petition filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.

Constitutional Basis of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Articles 32 and 226: Right to Constitutional Remedies

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is deeply rooted in the constitutional framework of India, particularly under Articles 32 and 226, which provide the right to constitutional remedies. These provisions empower the judiciary to protect and enforce fundamental rights and ensure that any violation of these rights can be addressed through judicial intervention.

1. Article 32 of the Constitution of India is often referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It provides the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to uphold fundamental rights. The scope of PIL under Article 32 allows the Supreme Court to hear petitions filed by individuals or groups on behalf of disadvantaged or marginalized communities whose fundamental rights have been infringed.
   
   
2. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, as well as for any other purpose. The broader jurisdiction under Article 226 enables High Courts to intervene not only in cases of fundamental rights violations but also in matters affecting public interest or governance issues. PIL under Article 226 is often used to address issues at a more localized or regional level.

Key Aspects of Articles 32 and 226 in PIL:

1. These articles represent the judiciary's role as the guardian of fundamental rights.
   
   
2. PIL allows the judiciary to be accessible to individuals or groups who might otherwise face barriers to justice, particularly in cases involving large-scale violations of fundamental rights or public interest issues.
   
   
3. Both articles reflect the transformative power of judicial activism in promoting social justice and good governance.

Expanding the Scope of Locus Standi

Traditionally, the doctrine of locus standi required that only individuals whose personal rights had been directly affected could file a petition before the courts. This limited the access to justice for marginalized groups, who often lacked the resources, awareness, or capacity to pursue legal remedies. The introduction and evolution of PIL in India fundamentally transformed this restrictive doctrine, allowing broader participation in the legal process.

1. Relaxation of Locus Standi
   In PIL cases, the courts have expanded the scope of locus standi, allowing any public-spirited individual, NGO, or group to file petitions on behalf of others, particularly those who are unable to do so due to poverty, illiteracy, or social marginalization.
   
   The landmark judgment in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also known as the Judges' Transfer Case, formalized this shift. In this case, the Supreme Court held that any person acting in good faith could bring a petition in the public interest, even if they were not directly affected by the matter. This opened the doors of the judiciary to public-spirited individuals, allowing PIL to become an effective tool for collective justice.
   
   
2. PIL as a Tool for Social Justice
   The shift from individual rights-based litigation to PIL allowed the judiciary to address broader systemic injustices. This was particularly evident in cases involving bonded labor, environmental degradation, prison reforms, and human rights violations. For example, in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the court allowed the petitioners to raise issues of labor exploitation on behalf of workers who were unable to approach the court themselves.
   
   PIL also enabled the judiciary to take suo motu cognizance of serious issues, where the court could act on the basis of newspaper reports or letters from concerned citizens, without a formal petition being filed.

Key Judicial Pronouncements in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) - Landmark in Labor Rights
   The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, recognized the severe exploitation and human rights violations faced by bonded labourers. The court issued directives for the release of bonded labourers, better implementation of existing labour laws, and provision of rehabilitation measures. The court also emphasized the need for effective enforcement of laws against bonded labour.
   
   The case marked a turning point in labour rights jurisprudence in India, emphasizing that the judiciary could intervene to address gross injustices and systemic exploitation. It highlighted the role of PIL in enforcing labour rights and ensuring that marginalized workers received justice and support.
   
   
2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) - Sexual Harassment at Workplace
   The Supreme Court, under Justice J.S. Verma, laid down the Vishaka Guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace. The court ruled that sexual harassment is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (discrimination), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
   
   The Vishaka case established comprehensive guidelines for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at the workplace. These guidelines were later codified into law through the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The case exemplified the role of PIL in advancing gender justice and creating institutional mechanisms to address and prevent workplace harassment.
   
   
3. M.C. Mehta Cases - Environmental Protection and Judicial Activism
   The Supreme Court, in various judgments under M.C. Mehta’s petitions, issued significant directives to address environmental issues. For example, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the court directed the closure of industries causing pollution near the Taj Mahal. In other cases, it mandated stricter pollution control measures and improvements in environmental governance.
   
   
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) - Right to Food
   The Supreme Court, under Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, recognized the Right to Food as a part of the right to life under Article 21. The court issued directives to improve the Public Distribution System (PDS) and ensure food security for the poor and underprivileged.
   
   The case underscored the role of PIL in addressing socio-economic rights and ensuring that fundamental rights, such as the right to adequate food, are effectively protected and enforced.
   
   
5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - Basic Structure Doctrine
   The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment, held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.” This doctrine was established to ensure that fundamental principles such as democracy, secularism, and rule of law remain intact.
   
   
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) - Right to Shelter
   The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, ruled that the right to livelihood and shelter is part of the right to life under Article 21. The court directed the authorities to ensure that evictions are carried out with due regard to the rights of the affected individuals and to provide alternative accommodation.
   
   
7. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) - Education Rights
   The Supreme Court ruled that while the state has the power to regulate educational institutions, it must do so in a manner that does not infringe upon the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
   
   
8. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) - Police Reforms
   The Supreme Court issued a series of directives aimed at reforming the police system, including measures for accountability, transparency, and separation from political influence. The court emphasized the need for systemic changes to improve law enforcement.
   
   

Significance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Social Transformation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has played a pivotal role in advancing social transformation in India. By empowering marginalized communities, addressing pressing environmental and human rights issues, and promoting broader social justice, PIL has become an instrument for societal change.

1. Role in Promoting Access to Justice for Marginalized Communities
   PIL has been instrumental in democratizing access to justice by allowing those who are socially or economically disadvantaged to seek redress through the courts. Traditionally, legal proceedings required individuals to have a direct stake in the case (locus standi), but PIL allowed any public-spirited individual or organization to file petitions on behalf of marginalized communities. This shift has been crucial in empowering groups who may lack the resources, awareness, or capacity to access the judiciary on their own.
   
   
2. Addressing Environmental and Human Rights Issues
   PIL has emerged as an essential tool in tackling environmental degradation and promoting human rights. In several landmark cases, the judiciary has used PIL to address large-scale violations of human rights and environmental concerns that affect the entire population.
   • Environmental Justice: One of the most impactful areas where PIL has contributed is environmental protection. Activists have used PIL to address pollution, deforestation, industrial hazards, and the mismanagement of natural resources, with the courts stepping in to enforce sustainable development principles.
     • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal, demonstrating the judiciary's active role in protecting environmental heritage. This case became a milestone in judicial activism for environmental protection.
     
     
   • Human Rights Advocacy: PIL has also been used to address human rights violations, especially for those in custodial institutions, women, children, and laborers. In cases involving issues such as forced labor, custodial torture, child rights, and sexual harassment, the judiciary has acted to protect vulnerable populations and promote human rights.
     • People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): The court took up the issue of labor rights, ruling that exploitation of workers was unconstitutional and directing state authorities to implement better working conditions.
   
   
3. Promoting Good Governance and Judicial Accountability
   PIL has also fostered judicial activism in matters of governance. The courts, through PIL, have held government agencies and public authorities accountable, ensuring that they fulfill their duties and act in the best interest of the public.

Challenges and Criticism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

1. Judicial Overreach vs. Judicial Activism:
   Judicial activism has allowed courts to address social and constitutional issues, filling legislative gaps (e.g., Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997). However, judicial overreach occurs when courts make decisions that interfere with executive or legislative functions (e.g., Arjun Gopal v. Union of India, 2017, firecracker ban). This overreach can undermine the separation of powers and democratic accountability.
   
   
2. Frivolous PILs and Abuse of Process:
   Frivolous PILs filed for personal or political motives dilute the genuine purpose of PILs, burdening the judiciary. The Supreme Court, in cases like State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), laid down guidelines to curb misuse. Frivolous PILs overburden courts and divert attention from critical issues, slowing judicial efficiency.

Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has significantly advanced social justice in India by empowering marginalized communities and addressing critical societal issues like human rights and environmental protection. However, the process also faces challenges, including concerns over judicial overreach and the misuse of PILs for personal or political motives. Courts must strike a balance between judicial activism and maintaining the separation of powers to ensure that PILs are used responsibly. Addressing these challenges is crucial to preserving the integrity of PIL as a transformative tool for social change and access to justice.