PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
485
27
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
SYNOPSIS
7. Relaxation of strict Rule of Locus Stand!.
1. Introduction.
a Protecting rule of law.
2 NatureandSoope.
3. Justification. 9. Social Dimensions.
4. Object. 10. Epistolary Jurisdiction.
5. Reasons. 11. Conclusion.
6. Constitutiooal oonspectus.
1. Introduction
In Black's Law Dictionary : 'Public Interest Litigation means a.legal acUon 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.'
The explicit purpose of public interest litigation is to alienate the suffering of all
those who have borne the burning of intensive treatment at the hands of fellow human
being. Transparency in public life and lair judicial action are the right answer to check
increasing menace of violation of legal rights. Traditional rule was that the nght to move
the Supreme Court is only available to those whose fundamental rights are infringed.
Public Interest Litigation is a sociological strategy of the judicial activism. It depicta
comprehensive expansion of the judicial process in the complicated task of mediating
between social reality and social change. This judicial strategy is being invoked as an
instrument of social change and social development for promoting social welfare.
Degraded bonded labourers, humiliated inmates of protective homes, women prisoners,
the untouchables, children of prostitutes, victims of custodial violence and rape and many
other oppressed and victimised groups are attracting remedial attention of the courts. At
the same time the gap between commitment and performance has resulted in chronic
overcommitment of the judges to provide relief from all kinds of critical social ills afflicting
the Indian Societr, Almost anything under the sun is covered under the rubric, public
interest litigation.
Public Interest Litigation means a social action which is initiated before the Court of
law for the purpose of enforcement of general public interest.
Initially PIL was considered as a strategy to enable public spirited citizens and
social activists to mobilize favourable judicial concern on behalf of the victimised and
oppressed groups: It ha_s_ become today a powerful weapon of the judicial activism for
involvement in social poht1cal and economic affairs of the society.
2. Nature and Scope
. Public Interest Litigation has been invented as a judicial strategy in response to
social act1v1sm. When a social action is brought in a court by social activist, it is decided
by the c,ourt on the basis of public interest. Lexically the expression, 'public interest
t
litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest general interest in which the public or class of community have pecuniary
interest. The Supreme Court and High Courts have widely enlarged the scope of Pll. by
1 Prolessor Parmanand Singh, Public Interest Litigation, Annual Survey of Indian Law Institute, 1992, p.
239 .
2. Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, AIR 1993 SC 892; See also Bhagwati, J's article : Socia! Action
Litigation The Indian Experience: Published in the Role of Judiciary in Plural Society in 1987.
(484)
relaxing and liberalising the rule of standing by treat·ing P - -
e1I1ions and 'letters' not only by
the persons or person who can be said to be 'aggrieved' ,d ff .
• OIth t b Ih • or a verseIy' a acted in the
stnct _sense e erm Y e action or omission by the respondents but acting Pro Bono
Pubhco .. !he_acceptance 01 . P0St·card litigation has resulted in rapid growth of public
interest llt1gat1~n since many issues of public imponance could be presented to the courts
without mcurnng heavy legal expenditure. However, a public Interest litigant cannot
choose his forum. I! matter 1s transferred to the Supreme Court, litigant has to make his
appearance before 11. 3
Public lnte~est ~itigation may be defined as 'litigation undertaken for the purpose of
redressing_ public iniu~, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective 'diffused'
rights and interests ~r vindicating P~blic interest.· Our system of administration of justice
Is based on_the_ carainal pnnc1ple of eq_ual Justice for all' but in practice the law of the land
has _ been d1scn~inating_ between the nch and the poor. It is true that equality before the
law 1s an essential .quality.of our legal system but beneath this surface of equality these
remains profound inequality m the actual working of the legal system by reason of in-
difference of the law to the inequality between the rich and the poor. Till recently, only the
privile_ged ~eople could approach th~ Court for protecting their vested interests. The poor,
even 11 having a valid claim to a particular right could not enforce the same due to lack of
money. Only the moneyed had_ the golden key to unlock the doors of justice. There was
equal law for all, but not equal Justice for all. The Supreme Court by invoking the doctrine
of 'public interest litigation' is trying to bridge the gull between the 'haves' and 'have nots'
so far as delivery of Justice is concerned.
The philosophy of public interest litigation lies in that where, a legal wrong or legal
injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of
any constitutional or legal rights or such person or determinate class is burdened with
imposition of any such rules and regulation in contravention of any constitutional or legal
provisions or without the authority of law and such person or class of determinate persons
are unable to approach the court for relief due to poverty or other disabilities, any member
of the public can make an application for the appropriate direction, order or writ in High
Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in cases of breach of any Fundamental Right
of such person, or determinate class of persons, in the Supreme Court under Art. 32
seeking redressal.
The council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford Foundation in U.S.A. defined
Public Interest Litigation as follows :
"Public Interest Law is the name that has recently beon given to efforts to
provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests.
Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that the ordinary market place
for legal services fails to provide such services to si~nificant segments of the
population and to significant interests. Such woups and interests .Tclude the poor,
environmentalists, consumers, racial ethnic minontIes and others.
This concept of social action litigation In India was initi~ted by Krishna Iyer, J. the !n
year 1976 in Mumbai Kamgarv. Abdu/labha1. 5 In this case Knshna Iyer, J. observed .
"Test litigation, representative actions, Pro Bono Publico and like broadened
forms of legal proceedings are keeping with the current accent on 1uslice to common
man and a necessary distinctness to those who wish to bypass the real issues on
merits by suspect reliance on peripheral, procedural shortcomings .......... .... Public
interest is promoted by a spacious ccnstruction of locus stand, !". our. social
economic circumstances .............................. taklng liberties with md1v1duallsat1on
of the right to Invoke the higher courts where the remedy 1s shared by a
3. Bai.JI Raghavan v. Union o/ lnd/4, (1996) 1 SCC 361 .
4. Balancing the scales of Justice-Financing Public Interest Law (1978) pp. 6-7 quoted l:'y S.K. Agarwal ,
Public Interest Litigation In India, A critique, p. 2.
5. AIR 1976 SC 1455.
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
486
considerable number, particular_ly when th~y are weaker less litigation, consistent
with fair process is the aim of ad1ect1ve law.
The Fundamental problem under the public interest litigation has been the status of
the members of general public to bring to the court _any issue of public 1mportan~e any
case of atrocitie,, suffering of any person or determinate class, _even though_ the right of
such petitioners are not affected . Under the con_cept of pubhc mterest ht1gation, the
traditional rule of standing was sought to be hberahsed . The Courts in such cases keep
aside all technical rules of procedure and entertain even_a lener addressed by an
individual acting Pro Bono Publico. On locus stand1 Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer m Fertilizer
Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of lndia,6 observed :
"Law as I conceive it, is a social auditor and this audit function can be put into
action only when some one with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction."
rtici_pative i_ustice. 7 It Is a
(i) Public interest litigation is a part of the process of pa_
strategic arm of the legal aid movement and is intended to b'.mg Ju_st1ce within the reach of
poor masses who constitute the low visibility area of humanity. It 1s totally a different field
of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary
character where there is a dispute between two litigation parties, one making claim or
seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or resisting such
relief.8
(ii) Public Interest Litigation is intended to promote and vindicate public interest
which demands that violations of constitutional legal rights of large number of people who
are poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go
unnoticed and unredressed . That would be destructive of the rule of law which forms one
of the essential elements of public interest in any democratic form of government. The rule
of law does not mean that the protection of law should be allowed to be prostituted by the
vested interests or protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of
enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights
and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in
reality .9
(iii) Public interest litigation is essentially a Co-operative or collaborative effort on
the part of the petitioner, the state or the 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. The state or
public authority against whom public interest litigation is brought should be as much
mtereste_d ,n ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as legal to those who are
in a _socially and economically disadvantaged position as the petitioner who brings the
public interest hllgation before the court. 10

6. AIR 1981 SC 344 (354).

7. Per Krishna Iyer J, 1n Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 (355
8. People 's Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 143 (1476-77) .
9. Ibid .
10. Ibid .