Aangi Sanghvi

B-51 Fourth Year

How PIL has been utilized for furtherance of social justice in India?

The Magna Carta of India, or Part III of the Indian Constitution, comprises a long list of
fundamental rights. It is also clearly true that without a framework for putting them into
effect, a declaration of fundamental rights would be pointless. Articles 32 and 226 were
added to the Indian Constitution as a result. Although you may utilise the writ jurisdiction to
petition the Supreme Court or the High Court if your fundamental rights are being infringed,
the problem still continues since millions of poor or middle-class individuals cannot afford
the lengthy and costly legal procedure. As a consequence, the Indian Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) movement received considerable support from the Supreme Court. The PIL
idea was based on the American judicial system. In 1979, one of the first PILs ever
submitted was filed, highlighting the situation of more than 40000 people who were being
held without charge for trial. India thereafter saw a significant increase in PILs. The scope
of Article 21 now includes the "right to a speedy trial."

PIL is a tool for social justice, and a PIL person is one of the most well-known figures in
this group. M.C. Mehta The Supreme Court has consistently expanded the purview of public
interest litigation by generously construing its various elements, which touch on a range of
critically important social issues. A potent weapon in the legal toolbox for obtaining social
justice for the common person is the Public Interest Litigation. In the famous ruling in the
case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court broadened the parameters of
public interest litigation and social interest litigation under Article 32, and Bhagwati, J.,
speaking for the majority, provided the following details: "The poor in India can write to
any judge to request the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The Court should not take
the strict attitude that no letters will be heard unless they are accompanied by an affidavit,
nor should it reject letters addressed to specific Justices of this Court just because they do
not follow the approved manner of address. The Court also ruled that it is within its
discretion to create any method and create any instrument it considers necessary for the
implementation of the impoverished people's basic rights ".
The judiciary's humanistic and all-encompassing attitude is in line with its constitutional
role as a sentinel and defender of the basic rights protected by the constitution.

The court created the admirable idea of public interest litigation in order to show
compassion to the needy, the destitute, the uninformed, and the disadvantaged, whose
fundamental rights are infringed and whose complaints go unheard, unrepresented, and
unheard. The goal of public interest litigation, which was its original inspiration, was to
make justice more accessible to the underprivileged members of society. It is one of the
finest qualities of the social justice notion, which gives life purpose and importance and
keeps the rule of law alive. PIL guarantees the provision of justice to individuals who have
been routinely denied it in the past owing to the existing social structure as a vehicle of
social reform. The PIL system has established itself as a powerful instrument for promoting
social justice and guaranteeing openness in government since it was first introduced as a
legal remedy. Unfortunately, in recent years, PILs filed with ulterior motivations have
flagrantly exploited such a crucial jurisdiction that the courts have diligently developed,
constructed, and nourished with great care and attention. An effective deterrence is required
to stop the filing of such baseless lawsuits. The judiciary has to be proactive and should
punish severely those who bring lawsuits just for the purpose of garnering attention. PIL is a
crucial tool that has to be utilised with extreme caution.