JURISPRUDENCE

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

ASSINGMENT: 1

NAME: DURGESH C.N

REG.NO: 18BLB1033
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:
The meaning, origin, development and the scope of Public Interest Litigation and the locus
standing for resorting to this jurisdiction of the Supreme court has been described by that
court itself. Basically the meaning of the word “Public Interest” is defined in Oxford English
dictionary as “the common well-being also public welfare”. It is litigation for any public
interest. Public interest litigation is a litigation which can be filed in any court of law by any
public spirited person for the protection of “public interest”.

1. M.C METHA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1987 SC 1086

FACTS: A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he sought closure for Shriram
Industries as it was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely
populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6 December 1985, there was
leakage of oleum gas from one of its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the
health of several others. The incident took place on December 4, 1985.

M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution and sought closure and relocation
of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant which was located in a thickly populated area
of Delhi.

Issues :

1. Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas?

2. If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be
evolved?
3. Liability and amount of compensation how to be determined?

Chief Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the safety of the people of the Delhi
from the leakage of hazardous substances like the one here – oleum gas. He was of the
opinion that we cannot adopt the policy to do away with chemical or hazardous industries
as they also help to improve the quality of life, a sin this case this factory, was supplying
chlorine to Delhi Water Supply Undertaking which is used to maintain the
wholesomeness of drinking water. Thus industries even if hazardous have to be set up
since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well being of the
people.

"We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all
necessary steps for locating such industries in a matter which would pose least risk of
danger to the community and maximizing safety requirements in such industries "

Thus the Supreme Court was of the opinion that total ban on the above industry of public
utility will impede the developmental activities.
It was also observed that permanent closure of the factory would result in the
unemployment of 4000 workers, caustic soda factory and add to social problem of
poverty. Therefore the court made an order to open the factory temporarily subject to
eleven conditions and appointed an expert committee to monitor the working of the
industry.

The court also suggested that a national policy will have to be evolved by the Government
for the location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in
regard of relocation of such industries with a view to eliminate risk to the community.

Some of the conditions formulated by the government were -:

1. The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to inspect and see
that pollution standards set under the Water Act and Air Act to be followed.
2. To constitute Worker's Safety Committee
3. Industry to publicise the effects of chlorine and its appropriate treatment
4. Instruct and train its workers in plant safety through audio visual programme,
install loudspeaker to alert neighbors in the event of leakage of gas
5. Workers to use safety devices like masks and belts
6. And that the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM
Limited, that in case of escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen or
people living in vicinity they will be "personally responsible " for payment of
compensation of such death or injury .

The Court also directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs 20 lakhs and to furnish
a bank guarantee for Rs. 15 lakhs for payment of compensation claims of the victims of
oleum gas if there was any escape of chlorine gas within three years from the date of
order resulting in death or injury to any workmen or living public in the vicinity . The
quantum of compensation was determinable by the District Judge , Delhi .It also shows
that the court made the industry "absolutely liable " and compensation to be paid as when
the injury was proved without requiring the industry to be present in the case .

The above mentioned conditions were formulated to ensure continuous compliance with
the safety standards and procedures laid by the committees (Manmohan Singh
Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee ) so that the possibility of hazard or risk to
workmen could be reduced to nil .

This all indicates that Supreme Court in its judgement emphasized that certain standard
qualities to be laid down by the government and further it should also make law on the
management and handling of hazardous substances including the procedure to set up and
to run industry with minimal risk to humans , animals etc.

Further the industries cannot absolve itself of the responsibility by showing either that
that they were not negligent in dealing with the hazardous substance or they took all the
necessary and reasonable precautions while dealing with it. Thus the court applied the
principle of no – fault liability in this case .
2. Javed v. State of Haryana (2003 8SCC 369)

FACTS-The Javed litigants challenged the constitutionality of a coercive population control

provision, which governed the election of the panchayat. The Haryana Provision disqualified “a
person having more than two living children” from holding specified offices in panchayats. The
objective of this two-child norm was to popularize family planning, under the assumption that
other citizens would follow the example of restrained reproductive behaviour set by their elected
leaders.

ARGUMENTS-

PROSECUTOR-It’s important to govern the population control and defence didn’t do their job
properly and provisions like dis qualifying people for elections and others.

DEFENSE-Imposing such provisions are unconstitutional and create statutory provisions based
on public Interest.

ISSUES-

The petitioners and appellants in the Javed case were individuals who had been disqualified from
either standing for election or continuing in the office of a panchayat because they had more than
two children.

Whether his decisions is valid or not?

JUDGEMENT-

Upholding the Haryana Provision as “salutary and in the public interest”, the Court’s main
emphasis was on “the problem of population explosion as a national and global issue” at the
expense of protecting human rights. The Javed decision did not evaluate critically the impact of
the contested provision on family planning. The Court described the provision as “well-defined”,
“founded on intelligible differentia”, and based on a clear objective to popularize family planning.

3.Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan air (1997) 6scc 241

FACTS- As part of a governmental campaign against child marriage, Bhanwari Devi attempted to
stop the marriage of a one- year-old girl in rural Rajasthan. Members of the local community
retaliated first by harassing Bhanwari Devi with threats and imposing a socio economic boycott
on her family . Then, on September 22, 1992, five men rapedBhanwari Devi. Bhanwari Devi faced
numerous obstacles when she attempted to seek justice. Frustrated by the criminal justice
system’s inability to provide tangible remedies and restore the dignity of the victim, Naina Kapur,
a lawyer who had attended trial Bhanwari Devi’s criminal, decided to initiate a PIL action in the
Supreme Court to challenge sexual harassment in the workplace.

ARGUMENTS-

PROSECUTOR- Accuses the defence for sexually harassing the prosecutor in the work place.

DEFENCE-There were no serious harassents and the defence barely made any harm to the
prosecutor.

ISSUES-

Whether, the enactment of guidelines mandatory for the repudment of sexual harassment of
women at workplace?

JUDGEMENT-

The judgment of Vishakha's case was conveyed by Chief Justice J.S Verma as a representative of
Justice Sujata Manihar and Justice B.N Kripal on account of writ petition which was file by
Vishakha the victim of this case. The court observed that the fundamental rights under Article
14[2], 19[3](1)(g) and 21[4]of Constitution of India that, every profession, trade or occupation
should provide safe working environment to the employees. It hampered the right to life and the
right to live a dignified life. The basic requirement was that there should be the availability of safe
working environment at workplace.
The Supreme Court held that, women have fundamental right towards the freedom of sexual
harassment at workplace. It also put forward various important guidelines for the employees to
follow them and avoid sexual harassment of women at workplace. The court also suggested to
have proper techniques for the implementation of cases where there is sexual harassment at
workplace. The main aim/objective of the Supreme Court was to ensure gender equality among
people and also to ensure that there should be no discrimination towards women at their
workplace.

4.Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand &

Others, 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97

FACTS: In this case residents of Ratlam city situated in state of Madhya Pradesh was the
petitioners. Some of the residents of Ratlam city filed complaint before Sub Divisional Magistrate
of Ratlam city alleging that municipality of that area is not constructing proper drains as required
and because of excertion created by nearby slum dwellers resulted into stench and stink in that
area which led public nuisance to the petitioners of the case. The Sub Divisional Magistrate of
Ratlam district instructed the municipality to prepare a proper development plan within 6
months of the complaint submitted by the residents of Ratlam city. The directions the Sub
Divisional Magistrate to the municipality was approved by High Court. Afterwards the
municipality came in appeal before the apex court of India and alleged that they do not have
proper financial support as well as proper funds to comply with the direction given by the sub
divisional magistrate of Ratlam city.After that, Supreme court give direction to the municipality
to follow the directions given by the Sub Divisional magistrate under Section 123 of Municipality
Act , 1961and said that shortage of funds is not a defence to carry out the basic duties done by the
local authorities of a particular region.

ARGUMENT:

The municipality argued that, 1) the residents chose to live where there are no facilities, and

2) the authorities lacked the funds necessary to construct what was required to comply.

This decision rejected the city's defense that it lacked resources, noting that the relevant
Indian law obligates the municipality to fulfill its public health duties. This case is also important
for the Supreme Court’s view of court powers to compel the fulfillment of government duties.
Where in the past the courts have been reactive to state harms committed, the Supreme Court in
this case allowed an affirmative action against the municipality.

ISSUE:

Whether by affirmative action a court can compel a statutory body to carry out duty towards
community to have a proper sanitation facility at greater cost.

JUDGEMENT:

In this case the apex court upheld the decision of High court. The Supreme court instructed the
Municipal Council of Ratlam to immediately follow order given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
of Ratlam city to protect the area from pollution caused by alcohol plant flowing into the
neighbouring areas of the resident .Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view affirming the
Magistrate’s order. Supreme court also ordered the municipal to take necessary steps to fulfill
their obligation by providing adequate number of public laterals for specifically men and women
separately along with to provide water supply and scavenging service in morning as well as in
evening to ensure proper sanitation. The court also ordered that these obligations to be fulfilled
within six months of court order. It was also added by the court if its order was not followed by
the Municipal Corporation then it will face charge of criminal contempt of court. Further more,
court also directed State Government to provide some measures to the department responsible
for malaria along with the city within specified time. The Court Further held that in case
municipality feel the need of resources then it will raise its demand from State government
by elitist projects, request loans from the State Government from the savings account of
public health expenditure to full fill the resource requirement for the implementation of courts
order.

5.Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

and Ors.

FACTS: The facts of the case are as such that the plight of people who live on pavements and
slums in the city of Bombay. They have made such areas their homes which exist in the midst
of filth and squalor. These are the people who made both of the ends of the day meet in
ambiguity, there is little hope of elevation of status between them. They came before the
Honorable Supreme Court to get back their homes from which they have been evicted by the
municipal authority for the city. Such snatching up of their homes is a violation of their Article
21. The major contention from their side that they have made these places their homes, as
they are near the place where they work, which in turn provide them great assistance. So, this
also infringes Article 19(1)(e) as they will be in a great difficulty to reach their workplace. To
live a life or to exercise the right to live they should also have right to livelihood and without
this such exercise is not possible.

Issues:
1. That the order for the eviction of the pavement is the infringement of their right to livelihood
and in turn the encroachment over their right guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution.
2. That the impugned action of the State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation is
violative of the provisions contained in Article 19(1) (3), 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution.
3. That the procedure prescribed by section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,
1888 for the removal of encroachments from pavements is arbitrary and unreasonable.

JUDGEMENT:
The decision of the Supreme Court in this case was based on the humanistic approach of the
judges and the Apex Court stepped into the activist role. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
slum dwellers must get the alternative shelter if they are evicted from the pavements. Although,
the eviction orders were held to be valid under article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In fact, the
right to life was once again enlarged to engulf the right to livelihood as being a part of liberty of
an individual. The decision of the Court also focused on the concept of the welfare state and
reliance though not expressly but impliedly was placed on the Directive Principles of the State
Policies under the Constitution.