It covers the different aspects of the rise and growth of Public Interest Litigation in

India

According to 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."

Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to
play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or
decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one
has to move the Supreme Court or the High Courts directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of
these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however,
makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and
underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance.

The Supreme Court of India, pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing
upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of
litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the
vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some
action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own
grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of
the injured person or the aggrieved party. Even this was greatly limited by the resources
available with those individuals. There was very little organized efforts or attempts to take up
wider issues that affected classes of consumers or the general public at large.

However, all these scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the
concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in
the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access
to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)-The legal history:

Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL can be broadly defined as litigation in the
interest of the public in general. Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party could personally
knock the doors of justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other person who was
not personally affected could not knock the doors of justice as a proxy for the victim or the
aggrieved party. In other words, only the affected parties had the locus standi (standing
required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non affected persons had no
locus standi to do so. And as a result, there was hardly any link between the rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of Indian Union and the laws made by the legislature on the one hand and
the vast majority of illiterate citizens on the other.

However, all these scenario gradually changed when the post Emergency Supreme Court
tackled the problem of access to justice by people through radical changes and alterations
made in the requirements of locus standi and of party aggrieved. The splendid efforts of
Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer were instrumental of this juristic
revolution of eighties to convert the apex court of India into a Supreme Court for all Indians.
And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups can
approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests
of general public or a section of public are at stake. Further, public interest cases could be
filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil litigation.

What is the adversarial system?

A trial does not involve the pursuit of truth by any means. The adversary system is the means
adopted and the judge's role in that system is to hold the balance between the contending
parties without himself taking part in their disputations. It is not an inquisitorial role in which
he seeks himself to remedy the deficiencies of the case on either side.

Non-adversarial Litigation

In the words of S.C. in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India1, “We wish
to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public interest litigation is a totally
different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim
or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such claim or resisting such relief”.

Non-adversarial litigation has two aspects:

1. Collaborative litigation; and

2. Investigative Litigation

Collaborative Litigation:
In collaborative litigation the effort is from all the sides. The claimant, the court and the
Government or the public official, all are in collaboration here to see that basic human rights
become meaningful for the large masses of the people. PIL helps executive to discharge its
constitutional obligations. Court assumes three different functions other than that from
traditional determination and issuance of a decree.

(i) Ombudsman-

The court receives citizen complaints and brings the most important ones to the attention of
responsible government officials.

(ii) Forum –

The court provides a forum or place to discuss the public issues at length and providing
emergency relief through interim orders.

(iii) Mediator –

The court comes up with possible compromises.

Investigative Litigation:

It is investigative litigation because it works on the reports of the Registrar, District

Magistrate, comments of experts, newspapers etc. Procedural Innovations In Non-adversarial
Litigation: Some Examples The ‘new methods and the tools to meet out justice’ that has been
referred to above can be shown by some examples of cases before the courts. Where a letter
addressed to the court showed wide spread exploitation of migrants’ workman in violation of
various welfare laws, the letter was treated as a writ petition under article 32 of constitution
of India . direction was issued to the Labour commissioner to enquire into and submit a report
and to the central government to file an affidavit. After receipt and the affidavit the court
found that the assertions in the letter petition were correct and directions were given
accordingly. This decision has been held to be an authority for proposition that a public
interest litigation is not of adversary character, but one of performance of constitutional
duties . This was because a new procedure was adopted for collecting evidence from
acceptable sources. Likewise in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha2 case on the plight of the
bounded laborers, the court had evolved new procedure supplementing the existing procedure
to meet the new position and to render justice in public interest litigation. It directed the
commissioner Labour to investigate into and collect the evidence and submit the report to the
court. In the case of a letter in a writ petition to

release bounded labuorers in the country the supreme court felt necessary to depart from
adversarial procedure and to evolve a new procedure which would make it possible for the
poor and weak to bring the necessary material before the court for the purpose of securing
enforcement of their fundamental rights. Similarly, in other PIL to release and rehabilitate the
bonded laborers, the court obtained a report from the committee appointed by the court.

It accepted the report and then gives direction to implement the committee’s
recommendations to the state government for rehabilitation of the bounded laborers. The
justification for departing from adversarial procedure and evolving new procedures to deal
with the problems of the bonded laborers specifically and the poor generally was provided by
the Supreme Court in the words quoted below:

Where one of the parties to a litigation belongs to a poor and deprived section of the
community and does not possess adequate social and material resources, he is bound to be at
a disadvantage as a strong and powerful opponent under the adversary system of justice,
because of his difficulty in getting competent legal representation and more than anything
else, his inability to produce relevant evidence before the court. The problems of poor are
qualitatively different from others and they need different kind of lawyering skill and a
different kind of judicial approach. Therefore, when the poor come before the court,
particularly for enforcement of their fundamental rights, it is necessary to depart from the
adversarial procedure and to evolve a new procedure which will make it possible for the poor
and the weak to bring the necessary material before the court for the purpose of securing
enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Non-adversarial Procedures Not Compromising Judicial Tenets

While resorting to a non-adversarial procedure some notes of cautions were identified by

Pathak J in the above mentioned “Bandhua Mukti Morcha” case3. In a separate though
concurring judgment, he observed: “……the court must exercise the greatest caution and
adopt procedures ensuring sufficient notice to all interests likely to be affected….whatever
the procedure adopted by the Court it must be procedure known to judicial tenets and
characteristic of a judicial proceeding.”
There are methods and avenues of procuring material available to executive and legislative
agencies, and often employed by them for efficient and effective discharge of the tasks before
them. Not all these methods and avenues are available to the court. The Court must remind
itself that one of indicia identifying it as a court is the nature and the character of the
procedure adopted by it in determining a controversy

If there is a statue prescribing a judicial procedure governing the particular case of the court
must follow such procedure. It is not open to the court to bypass the statue and evolve a
different procedure at variance with it. Where, however, the procedure prescribed by statue is
incomplete or insufficient, it will be open to the court to supplement it by evolving its own
rules. Nonetheless, the supplement procedure must conform at all stages to the principle of
natural justice, and other accepted procedural norms characteristic of judicial proceeding. It
has been pointed out that since writ proceedings are not ‘civil proceedings’, the provisions of
the Code of

Civil Procedure 1908 do not strictly apply to the petition instituted in h Supreme Court or in
high courts. At the same time, however, such proceeding is ‘original’ proceedings which
require material facts to be stated in petition. No doubt, public interest litigation is not
adversarial in nature and strict rules of pleading may not apply. Nevertheless, the general
principles of proceedings apply to public interest litigation also and all necessary and material
facts must be placed before the court and on the basis of such facts, decision ought to be
taken by the court.

The Basis for Non-Adversarial Procedure: Article 32 and 226

The provision conferring on the Supreme Court and the High Courts the power to enforce the
fundamental rights is in the widest terms. The Constitution of India confers the power on the
Supreme Court under article 32 to ‘issue the directions or orders or writs including the writs
on the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.’ The High
Courts under article 226 can enforce fundamental rights as well as the legal rights. The
insertion of the provision of widest possible terms shows the anxiety of the Constitution
makers not to allow any procedural technicalities to stand in the way of enforcement of
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, while elaborating upon this position, added “For
effectively safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the court in
appropriate cases in the interests of justice will certainly be competent to treat a proceeding,
though not in the conformity with the procedure prescribed by the rules of the court, as
appropriate proceedings under Article 32 and entertain the same. A mere technicality in the
matter of form or procedure which may not in any way affect the substance of any proceeding
should not stand in the way of the exercise of the very wide jurisdiction and powers conferred
on the Supreme Court under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution. Procedural law which also forms a part of the law and has to be
observed, is however, subservient to substantive law and the laws of procedure are prescribed
for promoting and furthering the ends of justice. The above decision shows that it is not at all
obligatory that an adversarial procedure must be followed in a proceeding under art 32 for
enforcement of a fundamental right.

2. Relaxation of strict rule of Locus Standi

The strict rule of locus standi has been relaxed by way of :

(a) Representative standing, and

(b) Citizen standing.

In D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar4, S.C. held that a petitioner, a professor of political science
who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation
of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in
repromulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The
court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a
petition under Article 32. The rule of locus standi have been relaxed and a person acting bona
fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of Public Interest Litigation will alone
have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights
and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or
political motive or any oblique consideration…court has to strike balance between two
conflicting interests:

i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the
character of others; and

ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive and the legislature .
It is depressing to note that on account of trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of
cases of genuine litigants.

Though the Supreme Court spares no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept
of PIL and extending its arm of sympathy to the poor, ignorant, the oppressed and the needy
whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed,
unrepresented and unheard.

Subjects Of Public Interest Litigation5

I) Matters relating to general public :

i) bonded labour matters

ii) matters of neglected children

iii) exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages to them (except in individual
cases)

iv) matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Backward Castes, either by Police or by co-villagers

v) matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food

adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life.

vi) petitions from riot victims and

vii) Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police, death in
police custody.

viii) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride, bride-burning,

rape, murder, kidnapping etc

ix) other matters of public importance.

II) Matters of private nature that can’t be brought through PIL are
i) threat to or harassment of the petitioner by private persons,

ii) seeking enquiry by an agency other than the local police,

iii) seeking police protection,

iv) land lord tenant dispute,

v) service matters

Against Whom PIL Can Be Filed

A PIL can be filed against a State/ Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, not any private
party. The definition of State is the same as given under Article 12 of the Constitution.

# The Government and Parliament of India

# The Government and Legislatures of each of the respective States.

# All local Authorities

# Other Authorities within the territory of India or under the Government of India

Private party can be included in PIL as “Respondent”, after making concerned State
Authority a party. PIL can’t be filed against a party alone.

Factors That Have Contributed To The Growth Of PIL

# The character of the Indian Constitution. Part III (Fundamental Rights) and part IV
(Directive Principles of State Policy) provide framework for regulating relations between the
state and its citizens inter-se.

# India has some of the most progressive social legislations in the world relating to bonded
labour, minimum wages, land ceiling, environmental protection, etc. This has made the court
haul up the executives when they are not performing their duties in ensuring rieghts of the
poor as per the law.

# The liberal interpretation of the locus standi where any person can apply to the court on
Judges can take sou moto action based on the newspaper articles and letters.
# Although social and economic rights given in the Constitution under part IV are not legally
enforceable, courts have creatively read these into Fundamental Rights. For instance Right to
Life under Article 21 has been expandedto include free legal aid, right to live with dignity,
right to education, right to work.

# Sensitive judges have constantly innovated on the side of the por. For instance, in the
Bandhua Mukti Morcha6 case in 1982, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the
respondents stating it would treat every forced labour cases as bonded labour unless proven
otherwise by the employer.

# In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all necessary evidence,
either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or economically,
courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts and present them before
the bench.

Private Litigation When May Take the Form The Form Of Public Litigation:

In Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi8, where allegations were made in
the petition disclosed a lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier University of India,
the Supreme Court laid down that the petitioner might have moved in his private interest but
enquiry was ordered into the conduct of examiners of the Bombay University as one of the
highest medical degrees was a matter of public interest. In this case Chief Minister tried to
get MD for his degrees.

Some Important Recent Cases Of Public Interest Litigation In The Supreme Court Of
India

1. PIL against removal of governors; Decided On: 07.05.2010

B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.8

Hon'ble Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., S.H. Kapadia, R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan
Reddy and P. Sathasivam, JJ.

The case was related to Constitution dealing with removal of Governors. Maintainability of
Petition was challenged based upon the interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution of
India. Whether the instant petition against the Presidential Order for removal of Governors
maintainable?

Holding of the Court:- With regard to question of public importance touching upon the scope
of Article 156(1) of the Constitution and the limitations upon Doctrine of Pleasure the
Petitioner has necessary locus.

What is the scope of “Doctrine of pleasure”? Held, Doctrine of Pleasure means that the
holder of an office under pleasure can be removed at any time, without notice, without
assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause.

But where rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable
action. Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the
President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be
read as being subject to the “fundamentals of constitutionalism”.

Doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act
arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. Withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will,
whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons.

Governors to be apolitical person like the President to discharge purely constitutional

functions, irrespective of their earlier political background.

Whether there are any express or implied limitations/restrictions upon the power under
Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India? Held, doctrine of pleasure under Article 156(1) is
subject to the express restrictions — Article 310(2) and the restrictions in Article 311(1) and
(2) implies restriction on “Doctrine of Pleasure — Clause (2) of Article 311 which provides
that no such employee shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an inquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges levelled against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Only limitation on the exercise of the
power under Article 156 is that it should be for valid reasons. What constitute valid reasons
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Judicial review of withdrawal of President’s pleasure — Whether the removal of Governors

in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is open to judicial review? Held, As there is no need to
assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed
to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review — If prima facie the removal
was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the Court will call upon the Union
Government to disclose, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to
withdraw the pleasure. If Union Government is unable to disclose then Court can interfere.
However, Court will not interfere merely because different view possible or that material
reasons insufficient. Petition Disposed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi:

“Power under Article 156(1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable

manner and only in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.”

“Court can call upon the Union Government to disclose, the material upon which the
President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure if prima facie the removal was
either arbitrary, mala fide, capricious or whimsical.”

2. PIL against dissolution of Bihar Assembly in 2005 ; Decided On: 24.01.2006

Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.9

JUDGMENT given by Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.

The challenge in the present petitions is to the Constitutional validity of Notification dated
23rd May, 2005 ordering dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar —
Whether the proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal
and unconstitutional.

Hold of the Court - If political party with support of other political party stakes claim to form
government and satisfies the Governor about its majority to form stable government,
Governor cannot refuse formation of Government and override the majority claim because of
his subjective assessment that majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means. Grounds
of mal-administration by State Government enjoying majority is not available for invoking
power under Article 356. Hence, impugned proclamation was unconstitutional.

Immunity to Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India. What is the scope of
Article 361 granting immunity to the Governor. Governor enjoys complete immunity.
Governor is not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and
duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and
performance of those powers and duties. Immunity granted by Article 361(1) does not,
however, take away the power of the Court to examine the validity of the action including on
the ground of mala fides.

Status quo ante (Restoration of) If the notification dated 23rd May 2005 is declared as
invalid, is it necessary to direct status quo ante as on 7th March, 2005 or 4th March, 2005?
Held, status quo ante cannot be directed. Reasons are the larger public interest, keeping in
view the ground realities and taking a pragmatic view. As a result of the impugned
Proclamation, the Election Commission of India had announced election which had reached
on an advanced stage. Hence, the court permitted the completion of the ongoing election
process with the fond hope that the electorate may again not give fractured verdict and may
give a clear majority to one or other political party.

3. PIL against removal of MPs; Decided On: 10.01.2007

Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors.10

Hon'ble Judges:

Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., K.G. Balakrishnan, C.K. Thakker R.V. Raveendran and D.K. Jain, JJ.

C.K. Thakker, J.

Parliamentary Privileges: Meaning

The interpretation of Article 105 of Constitution of India is in issue in these matters. The
question is whether in exercise of the powers, privileges and immunities as contained in
Article 105, are the Houses of Parliament competent to expel their respective Members from
membership of the House. If such a power exists, is it subject to judicial review and if so, the
scope of such judicial review.

The unfortunate background in which the aforesaid questions have arisen is the allegation
that the Members of Parliament (MPs) indulged in unethical and corrupt practices of taking
monetary consideration in relation to their functions as MPs.

A private channel had telecast a programme on 12th December, 2005 depicting 10 MPs of
House of People (Lok Sabha) and one of Council of States (Rajya Sabha) accepting money,
directly or through middleman, as consideration for raising certain questions in the House or
for otherwise espousing certain causes for those offering the lucre. This led to extensive
publicity in media. The Presiding Officers of each Houses of Parliament instituted inquiries
through separate Committees. Another private channel telecast a programme on 19th
December, 2005 alleging improper conduct of another MP of Rajya Sabha in relation to the
implementation of Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme ('MPLAD'
Scheme for short). This incident was also referred to a Committee. The majority Report
recommended expulsion of the 10 members from the membership of Lok Sabha finding that
their continuance as Members of the House would be untenable.

Power of Parliament to expel a Member –

Held, Members of the Constitution wanted Parliament to retain power and privileges to take
appropriate action against any individual member for "anything that has been done by him"
which may bring Parliament or Legislative Assembly into "disgrace" - Therefore, it cannot be
said that the Founding Fathers of the Constitution were not aware or never intended to deal
with individual misdeeds of members - It cannot be said that no action can be taken by the
Legislature under Article 105 or 194 of the Constitution of India.

The appropriate course in case of allegation of corruption against a Member of Parliament, is

to prosecute the member in accordance with law (The immunity under Article 105(2) may not
be available, recognizes immunity to a member who is a bribe taker only where the 'bribe' is
taken in respect of a 'vote' given by him in Parliament and not otherwise). Such cases can be
fast tracked. Pending such criminal proceedings, the member can be suspended temporarily,
if necessary, so as to prevent him from participating in the deliberations of the Houses. On
being tried, if the member is convicted, he becomes disqualified for being or continuing as a
Member under Article 102(1)(e). If he is acquitted, he is entitled to continue as a member.
Though it may sound cumbersome, that apparently is what the Constitution intends.

Therefore, there is no power of expulsion in the Parliament, either inherent or traceable to

Article 105(3). Expulsion by the House will be possible only if Article 102 or Article 101 is
suitably amended or if a law is made under Article 102(1)(e) enabling the House to expel a
member found unworthy or unfit of continuing as a member.

In view of the above, I hold that the action of the two Houses of Parliament, expelling the
petitioners is violative of Articles 101 to 103 of the Constitution and therefore invalid.
Petitioners, therefore, continue to be Members of Parliament (subject to any action for
cessation of their membership). Petitions and transferred cases disposed of accordingly.

RAVEENDRAN J. gave dissenting Judgment

Ratio Decidendi:

Legislature posses plenary powers controlled by the basic concepts of written constitution
conferring powers on the legislature to function.

Act of illegality or unconstitutionality will not save the Parliamentary proceedings from the
scope of judicial review, as in case of gross illegality or violation of constitutional provisions
the Court has the jurisdiction to examine the procedure adopted.

4. PIL for improving the conditions of quarry workers; Decided On: 13.08.1991

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors11

Hon'ble Judges:

Ranganath Misra, C.J., M.M. Punchhi and S.C. Agrawal, JJ.

A letter addressed to this Court complaining about prevalence of bonded labour system in
Cutton, Anangpur and Lakkarpur areas of Faridabad District in Haryana State wherein the
stone quarries workers are living in most inhuman conditions, was treated as a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. this Court appointed two Advocates as Commissioners
to inquire into the working conditions of the stone quarry workers with particular reference to
the cases mentioned in the writ petition. this Court finding the necessity of an in-depth
investigation into social and legal aspects of the problem also appointed Dr. S.B. Patwardan
and Mr. Krishan Mahajan to study the working conditions prevailing in the various quarries
within the Faridabad district with particular reference to violation of provisions of the
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976 and Inter-State Migrant Workmen
(Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act. The Commissioners furnished
their report to the Court on 28th of June, 1982.
Several questions were raised before the Court apart from merit of the dispute; the important
ones being (i) whether an application under Article 32 of the Constitution was maintainable,
particularly when no allegation of infringement of petitioner's fundamental right was made;
(ii) whether a letter addressed to the Court could be treated as a writ petition and be
proceeded with in the absence of support by affidavit or verification; and (iii) whether the
Court had power to appoint Commissioners or an investigative body to inquire into
allegations made in the petition and by affidavits and require reports to be made to the Court
for facilitating exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The court accordingly allowed this writ petition and issued the above directions to the Central
Government and the State of Haryana and the various authorities mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs of this judgment so that these poor unfortunate workmen who lead a miserable
existence in small hovels, exposed to the vagaries of weather, drinking foul water, breathing
heavily dust-laden polluted air and breaking and blasting stone all their life, may one day be
able to realise that freedom is not only the monopoly of a few but belongs to them all and that
they are also equally entitled along with others to participate in the fruits of freedom and
development. These directions may be summarised as follows:

(1) The Government of Haryana will, without any delay and at any rate within six weeks
from today, constitute Vigilance Committee in each sub-division of a district in compliance
with the requirements of Section 13 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
keeping in view the guidelines given by us in this judgment.

(2) The Government of Haryana will instruct the district magistrates to take up the work of
identification of bonded labour as one of their top priority tasks and to map out areas of
concentration of bonded labour which are mostly to be found in stone quarries and brick kilns
and assign task forces for identification and release of bonded labour and periodically hold
labour camps in these areas with a view to educating the labourers inter alia with the
assistance of the National Labour Institute.
(3) The State Government as also the Vigilance Committee and the district magistrates will
take the assistance of non-political social action groups and voluntary agencies for the
purpose of ensuring implementation of the provisions of the Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976.

(4) The Government of Haryana will draw up within a period of three months from today a
scheme or programme for rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers in the light of the
guidelines set out by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in his
letter dated September 2, 1982 and implement such scheme or programme to the extent found
necessary.

(5) The Central Government and the Government of Haryana will take all necessary steps for
the purpose of ensuring that minimum wages are paid to the workmen employed in the stone
quarries and stone crushers in accordance with the principles laid down in this judgment and
this direction shall be carried out within the shortest possible time so that within six weeks
from today, the workmen start actually receiving in their hands a wage not less than the
minimum wage.

(6) If payment of wages is made on truck basis, the Central Government will direct the
appropriate officer of the Central Enforcement Machinery or any other appropriate authority
or officer to determine the measurement of each truth as to how many cubic ft. of stone it can
contain and print or inscribe such measurement on the truck so that appropriate and adequate
wage is received by the workmen for the work done by them and they are not cheated out of
their legitimate wage.

(7) The Central Government will direct the Inspecting Officers of the Central Enforcement
Machinery or any other appropriate Inspecting Officers to carry out surprise checks at least
once in a week for the purpose of ensuring that the trucks are not loaded beyond their true
measurement capacity and if it is found that the trucks are loaded in excess of the true
measurement capacity, the Inspecting Officers carrying out such checks will immediately
bring this fact to the notice of the appropriate authorities and necessary action shall be
initiated against the defaulting mine owners and/or thekedars or jamadars.

(8) The Central Government and the Government of Haryana will ensure that payment of
wages is made directly to the workmen by the mine lessees and stone crushers owners or at
any rate in the presence of a representative of the mine lessees or stone crusher owners and
the Inspecting Officers of the Central Government as also of the Government of Haryana
shall carry out periodic checks in order to ensure that the payment of the stipulated wage is
made to the workmen…………and some other guidelines.

Adversarial Procedure is Not Sacrosanct

An adversarial procedure is seen as one where each party produces his own evidence tested
by cross examination by the other side and the judge sits like an umpire and decides the case
only on the basis of field material before him by the both parties. There is nothing sacrosanct
about the adversarial procedure, and in fact it is not followed in many other countries where
the civil system law prevails. The Supreme Court has observed that it is only because we
have been following adversarial procedure for over a century owing to the introduction of
Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence under the British rule that become a major part of our
conscious as well as sub-conscious thinking, that every judicial proceeding must be cast in
the mould of adversarial procedure. The adversarial litigation has in fact come under severe
criticism even in that country of its origin and there is increasing tendency even in that
country to depart from strict norm.

The adversarial procedure reflected by evidence led by either parties and tested by cross
examination by the other party has become a part of India legal system because embodied in
the code of civil procedure 1908 and the Indian evidence act 1872 but these status obviously
have no application where a new jurisdiction created in the supreme court for enforcement of
any fundamental right. The use of the dynamics of the public interest litigation represents a
creation of such a new jurisdiction for enforcing fundamental rights. In this context in a
specific case the supreme court had observed that the case before us is not of the ordinary
type where there are two contending parties, a claim is raised by one and denied by the other,
issues are struck, evidence is led and the findings follow…the writ petition is essentially in
the nature of public interest litigation and the pertitioner has attempted to voice the
grievances of the community.

There has been a mindset that justice cannot be done unless the adversarial procedure is
adopted. However, there is a considerable body of juristic opinion in India which believes
that strict adherence of adversarial procedure can sometimes lead to injustice particularly
were the parties are not even balanced in social or economical strength.

Therefore when the poor come before the court particularly for enforcement the fundamental
rights, it is necessary material before the court for securing the enforcement of their
fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has thus opined that the problems of the poor that are
now coming before the court are qualitatively different from those that have hitherto
occupied the attention of the court. They need a different kind of legal skill and a different
kind of judicial approach. If we blindly follow the adversarial procedure in their case, they
would never be able to enforce their fundamental rights and the result would be nothing but a
mockery of the constitution. The court thus reiterated that: We have therefore to abandon the
laissez faire approach in the judicial process particularly where it involves a question of
enforcement fundamental rights and forge new tools, devise new methods and adopt new
strategies for the purpose of making fundamental rights meaningful for large masses of
people.

Grounds On Which A PIL Can Be Rejected

Infructuous petition

Cases :- Mohit v. District Magistrate12: In this case it was held that when a petition is filed
under article 32 for writ of habeas corpus, but the detenu is released during the pendency of
the case, the court dismissed it for being infrutuous.

Not impleading the necessary parties

Cases :- Krishna Swamy v. Union of India13:In this case the writ petition was concerned with
the removal of a sitting Supreme Court Judge from office, but the Hon’ble Judge was not
made a party to it. The petition was dismissed on this ground alone.

Misrepresentation or suppression of facts

Cases :- K Welcome Hotel v. State of Andhra Pradesh14: The petitioners have not shown that
in their overall turnover they have since the promulgation of impugned orders suffered losses.
And this situation never fructified because the 1978 Order was kept in suspended animation
for a period of two years and when the latest order dated January 5, 1981 was promulgated, it
was still-born at the hands of the Court because of the ex parte stay order obtained by the
petitioners.

Res Judicata

Means that once a case is disposed of by any competent court then no need to go to other
court. The principle of res judicata, is covered under Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Cases :- Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (AIR of SC 391), the Supreme Court,
while dealing with the question of Res judicata in a PIL, held that the principle would apply
to a PIL but it must be proved that the previous litigation was a PIL and not one relating to a
private grievance. It has to be a bonafide likigation in respect'of a right which is common and
is agitated in common with others. The court held that the onus of proving the want of
bonafides in respect oGthe previous litigation, would be on the party seeking to avoid the
decision

ABUSE OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION:

However, the development of PIL has also uncovered its pitfalls and drawbacks. As a result,
the apex court itself has been compelled to lay down certain guidelines to govern the
management and disposal of PILs. And the abuse of PIL is also increasing alongwith its
extended and multifaceted use.

Of late, many of the PIL activists in the country have found the PIL as a handy tool of
harassment since frivolous cases could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as
required in private civil litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the victims of stay
orders obtained in the so-called PILs.

Just as a weapon meant for defence can be used equally effectively for offence, the lowering
of the locus standi requirement has permitted privately motivated interests to pose as public
interests. The abuse of PIL has become more rampant than its use and genuine causes either
receded to the background or began to be viewed with the suspicion generated by spurious
causes mooted by privately motivated interests in the disguise of the so-called public
interests.

Illustrative Cases Of Misuse Of Public Interest Litigation In The Supreme Court Of

India

Negative Use Of PIL :

1. PIL for use of forest land ; Decided On: 10.04.2006

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges:

Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J., Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

Topic: Environment - forest land

Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 the matter pertaining to question that whether land
measuring about 15 hectares leased by State of Chattisgarh to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and
Power Limited for setting up of coal washery is part of 'forest land' . Contention was that
prior approval of Central Government under Act of 1980 was necessary before setting up coal
washery as land allotted to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited was forest land
according to petitioner, but as per Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report land allotted
to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited is not forest land so prior approval of Central
Government was not required. Again contention was there that proper parameters have not
been taken into account and better technology was not deliberately resorted to. But
recommendations of CEC were accepted –that the land allotted to M/s. Maruti Clean Coal
and Power Limited is not forest land so prior approval not required.

Matter pertaining to genuineness of public interest litigation - CEC did not exceeded its
jurisdiction in pointing out facts relevant to determine bonafides of applicant. M/s. Maruti
Clean Coal and Power Limited pleaded since beginning that Deepak Agarwal has been set up
by their competitor and there was link between competitors of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and
Power Limited and Deepak Agarwal . The application filed by Deepak Agarwal was far from
bona fide. The label of public interest given by Deepak Agarwal clearly and demonstrably
camouflage since real person behind this application allegedly filed in public interest is
competitor of M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited operating in area and having
monopoly. The Supreme Court strongly depreciated filing of entirely misconceived and mala
fide application in grab of public interest by litigant. Thus application dismissed.

The judges observed that for the last few years, inflow of public interest litigation has
increased manifold. A considerable judicial time is spent in dealing with such cases. A person
acting bona fide alone can approach the court in public interest. Such a remedy is not open to
an unscrupulous person who acts, in fact, for someone else. The liberal rule of locus standi
exercised in favour of bona fide public interest litigants has immensely helped the cause of
justice. Such litigants have been instrumental in drawing attention of this Court and High
Courts in matters of utmost importance and in securing orders and directions for many under-
privileged such as, pavement dwellers, bonded labour, prisoners' conditions, children,
pollution of air and water, clean fuel, hazardous and polluting industries or preservation of
forests. While this Court has laid down a chain of notable decisions with all emphasis at their
command about the importance and significance of this newly developed doctrine of PIL, it
has also hastened to sound a red alert and a note of severe warning that courts should not
allow its process to be abused by a mere busybody or a meddlesome interloper or wayfarer or
officious intervener without any interest or concern except for personal gain or private profit
or other oblique' consideration.

2. PIL for conversion of death sentence to life imprisonment, Decided On: 18.11.2003

Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.19

Hon'ble Judges: Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.

This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of has been filed purportedly in public
interest. The prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the death sentence imposed on one
Dhananjay Chatterjee @ Dhana (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') by the Sessions
Court, Alipur, West Bengal, affirmed by the Calcutta High Court and this Court, needs to be
converted to a life sentence because there has been no execution of the death sentence for a
long time. Reliance was placed on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Smt.
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat.

According to the petitioner, he saw a news item in a TV channel wherein it was shown that
the authorities were unaware about the non-execution of the death sentence and, therefore,
condemned prisoner, the accused has suffered a great degree of mental torture and that itself
is a ground for conversion of his death sentence to a life sentence. It needs to be noted here
that prayer for conversion of death sentence to life sentence has already been turned down by
the Governor of West Bengal and the President of India in February 1994 and June 1994
respectively as stated in the petition. When the matter was placed for admission, we asked the
petitioner who appeared in-person as to what was his locus standi and how a petition under
Article 32 is maintainable on such nature of information by which he claims to have come to
know of it. His answer was that as a public spirited citizen of the country, he has a locus to
present the petition and when the matter involved life and liberty of a citizen, this Court
should not stand on technicalities. There has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
and the prolonged delay in execution of sentence is violative of Article 21, so far as the
accused is concerned.
When there is material to show that a petition styled as a public interest litigation is nothing
but a camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before we
grapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel it necessary to consider the issue
regarding public interest aspect. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an
important field in the administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or
"private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income
litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and genuine
public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or poke
ones into for a probe. It cannot also be invoked by a person or a body of persons to further his
or their personal causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justice
should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the
extraordinary jurisdiction. A person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration. . A writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must
come not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart,
clean mind and clean objective.

It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the
Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the
disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts. In fostering and
developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor,
the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and
violated and whose grievance go unnoticed, un-represented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid
but express our opinion that while genuine litigants, with legitimate grievances relating to
civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in
which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced
to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue
delay in service matters - government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases
wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorized collection of tax amounts are
locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders etc. etc. are all standing in
a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having
their grievances redressed, the busy bodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious
interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit
either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for
glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest
litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus
criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts and as a result of which the queue standing
outside the doors of the court never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the
minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they loose faith in the administration of our
judicial system.

3. PIL against Ports Authority; Decided On: 14.05.2009

Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v.Union of India (UOI) and Ors.21

Hon'ble Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ

Case related to Trade and Commerce regarding Development of Pondicherry port. Contract
awarded to one participating party, Respondent No. 11 herein. Selection procedure was
challenged by the Appellant on the on ground of it being arbitrary and done with oblique
motive. It was held, Appellants could not specify either in the petitions filed before the High
Court or in the memorandum of appeals as to which member of the expert committee or
which official of the Government was interested in awarding Letter of Intent to Respondent
No. 11 for oblique motives. Government of Pondicherry advertised three times calling for
Expression of Interest from the interested firms and had identified Respondent No. 11 for
development of the Port after adopting transparent procedure. Events leading to the award of
Letter of Intent to the Respondent No. 11 does not indicate, in any manner that the
Government had acted arbitrarily or that the Letter of Intent was issued to favour the
Respondent No. 11 with oblique motives. Thus Appeals dismissed
Award of Contract to Private party for Development of Pondicherry port facilities.
Applicability of Indian Major Ports Act, 1908 providing necessity of Prior approval from
Central Government. Held, the Pondicherry Port is not a “major port” and as such jurisdiction
and control to develop the said port vests in the Government of Pondicherry. Thus Appeal
Dismissed.

Held, non-floating of tenders or not holding of public auction would not be in all cases be
deemed to be the result of the exercise of the executive power in an arbitrary manner —
When any State land is intended to be transferred or the State largesse decided to be
conferred, resort should be had to public auction or transfer by way of inviting tenders from
the people — Scope of judicial review limited in matters of policy decision and economic
tests — Interference by Court only if decision contrary to staututory provision or the
Constitution — No interference by court with economic decision taken by the State — Court
cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down the
same merely on ground that another policy would have been fairer and better — Appeal
Dismissed

Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation. Selection procedure challenged by Appellant —

Locus standi of Appellant questioned — Held, only ground on which the Appellants could
have maintained a PIL before the High Court was to seek protection of the interest of the
people of Pondicherry by safeguarding the environment — This issue was raised by the
Appellants before the High Court and the High Court has issued directions regarding the
same — Once direction were issued by the Court the element of public interest of the
Appellants’ case no longer survived — Appellants cannot, therefore, proceed to challenge the
Award of the Contract in favour of the Respondent No. 11 on other grounds as this would
amount to challenging the policy decision of the Government of Pondicherry through a PIL,
which is not permissible — Contract assailed by the Appellant purely commercial in nature
— Neither the parties which had participated in the process of selection nor one of those who
had expressed desire to develop the Port but was not selected came forward to challenge the
selection procedure or selection of Respondent No. 11 — Appeals dismissed
Ratio Decidendi:

“There is a very limited scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to policy making or
economic policies can only interfere when the policies are contrary to statutory provision or
the constitution of India.”

4. PIL against construction of multi-story building; Decided on : 19.01.2005

R and M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Ors.22

Hon'ble Judges: Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mathur, JJ

Case related to Property Article 226 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 32 - Issuance of
licence by Bangalore Municipal Corporation to appellant for construction of multi
storeyed/multi-apartments in IInd and IIIrd cross in III Block, Koramangala layout,
Bangalore – Public interest litigation filed by respondent Association Koramangala Residents
Vigilance group challenging issuance of licence as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and violative
of Article 14. Grievance of Residents Aassociation that they acquired sites and built houses in
area under bonafide belief that lay out would be developed and maintained according to law.
Speculators in real estate were alleged to have started their activities which are detrimental to
the quality of life of the residents of the area. Multi-storeyed buildings and multi-apartment
buildings were causing strain on the public amenities. Property developers by using their
influence and money were getting licences against statutory prohibitions. Writ petitioners
alleged that Municipal Corporation of Bangalore was not empowered to grant licences to
appellant.

Special leave Petition was filed. There was absence of application of any ceiling on
construction of multi-storeyed building under provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation
Act or Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. As grant of permission to appellant
for raising construction upto third floor not in violation of any of provisions of Act and rules,
no illegality committed by corporation in issuance of license to respondent. Construction
started by appellant in 1987 and building coming upto three floors. Construction stopped in
1988 and in March 1991 it was resumed after permission was granted. Writ Petition filed in
November 1991 when construction almost complete. Since Delay being a very important
factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, delay held fatal to
petition. Thus the PIL held not maintainable.

Steps Necessary:

With the view to regulate the abuse of PIL the apex court itself has framed certain guidelines
(to govern the management and disposal of PILs.) The court must be careful to see that the
petitioner who approaches it is acting bona fide and not for personal gain, private profit or
political or other oblique considerations. The court should not allow its process to be abused
by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain political
objectives. Political pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the
administrative process or political process may try to use the courts (through the means of
PILs) to further their closely vested aims and interests.

There may be cases where the PIL may affect the right of persons not before the court, and
therefore in shaping the relief the court must invariably take into account its impact on those
interests and the court must exercise greatest caution and adopt procedure ensuring sufficient
notice to all interests likely to be affected.

At present, the court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. But, it is not
every letter which may be treated as a writ petition by the court. The court would be justified
in treating the letter as a writ petition only in the following cases-

(i) It is only where the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person or

(ii) a public spirited individual or

(iii) a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or the legal rights of a person
in custody or of a class or group of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach the court for redress.
Even though it is very much essential to curb the misuse and abuse of PIL, any move by the
government to regulate the PIL results in widespread protests from those who are not aware
of its abuse and equate any form of regulation with erosion of their fundamental rights. Under
these circumstances the Supreme Court Of India is required to step in by incorporating safe
guards provided by the civil procedure code in matters of stay orders /injunctions in the arena
of PIL.

In the landmark PIL for Raunaq International Limited v/s IVR Construction Ltd23, Justice
Sujata V Manohar rightly enunciated that - when a stay order is obtained at the instance of a
private party or even at the instance of a body litigating in public interest, any interim order
which stops the project from proceeding further must provide for the reimbursement of costs
to the public in case ultimately the litigation started by such an individual or body fails. In
other words the public must be compensated both for the delay in the implementation of the
project and the cost escalation resulting from such delay.

Conclusion:

Public Interest Litigants, all over the country, have not taken very kindly to such court
decisions. They do fear that this will sound the death-knell of the people friendly concept of
PIL. However, bona fide litigants of India have nothing to fear. Only those PIL activists who
prefer to file frivolous complaints will have to pay compensation to then opposite parties. It is
actually a welcome move because no one in the country can deny that even PIL activists
should be responsible and accountable. It is also notable here that even the Consumers
Protection Act, 1986 has been amended to provide compensation to opposite parties in cases
of frivolous complaints made by consumers. In any way, PIL now does require a complete
rethink and restructuring. Anyway, overuse and abuse of PIL can only make it stale and
ineffective. Since it is an extraordinary remedy available at a cheaper cost to all citizens of
the country, it ought not to be used by all litigants as a substitute for ordinary ones or as a
means to file frivolous complaints.

Footnotes:
1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 S.C. 1473

2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha AIR1992SC38; (1991)4SCC174

3. Ibid

4. D.C.Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579

5. Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications

6. supra 2

7. Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987 (4) SCC 227; AIR 1987 SC
294)

8. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr (2010)6SCC33

9. Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr

10. Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors (2007)3SCC184

11. supra 2

12. Mohit v. D.M, AIR 1974 SC 2237

13. Krishna Swamy v. Union of India(AIR 1993 SC 1407)

14. K Welcome Hotel v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1983 SC 1015)

15. Trilochand Motichand v. HP Munshi (AIR 1970 SC 898)

16. Gyan Singh v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana(AIR 1980 SC1894)

17. Kini v. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC 8915)

18. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR2006SC1774,

19. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. The State of West Bengal and Ors; AIR2004SC280;
(2004)3SCC349

20. Smt. Triveniben v. State of Gujarat 1990CriLJ1810

21. Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v.Union of India (UOI) and Ors, Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 9988 of 2007
22. R and M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Ors., Appeal (civil) 1415
of 1999

23. Raunaq International Limited v. IVR Construction Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 393