*Azeez Nazar Sabri, (LLM (Business Law)
Public Interest litigation (
PIL) means a legal action initiated in a Court of Law for the enforcement of
public interest on which the public or class of community is having certain
interest, that may affect their legal rights or liability. Thus the PIL is not litigation
for enforcement of the individual rights, but for enforcement of the rights of
general public or community as whole. Public
Interest Litigation is directly filed in Supreme Court or High Courts by an individual
or group of peoples/ NGOs etc. Article
39 A of the constitution provides that the State shall ensure the operation of
the legal system, promote justice on a basis of equal opportunity to all of its
citizens. Article 14 provides for equal treatment of all citizens. PIL is a
means through which the goal of justice to all, envisaged under article 39 A
&14 can be achieved.
Definition
of PIL
Public Interest Litigation has been defined in the
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition ) as under:
Public Interest – Something
which the public, the community at
large, has some pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere
curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected
by the matters in question. Interest shared by Citizens generally in affairs of
local, state or national government…….
The Council for Public Interest Law set up by the Ford
Foundation in USA defined “ Public Interest Litigation” in its report of Public
Interest Law, USA, 1976 as follows:
“ Public Interest Law is the name that has recently been
given to efforts provide legal representation to previously unrepresented
groups and interests.
Supreme Court of India in People’s Union for Democratic
Rights & Others Vs. Union of India & Others ( 1982) 3 SCC 235 defined “
Public Interest Litigation” and observed that the “ Public Interest Litigation
is a cooperative or collaborative efforts by the petitioner, state of public
authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic
human rights, benefits and privileged upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable
sections of the society”.
In the recent years the PIL
has emerged as the tool to project the rights of the socially/
economically backward class of society.
Origin
of PIL in India
The origin and evolution of
the Public Interest Litigation in India emanated from the realization of
constitutional obligation by the judiciary towards the vast sections of the
Society.
In Hussainara Khatoon &
Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar ( AIR ) 1979 SC1369, P.N.Bhagwati, J.
observed that “today, unfortunate, in our country the poor are priced out of
the judicial system with the result that they are losing faith in the capacity
of our legal system. The poor in their contact with legal system have always
been on the wrong side of the line. They have always come across” law for the
poor” rather than “law of the poor”. The law is regarded by them as something
mysterious and forbidding always talking something away from them and not as
positive and constructive social device for changing the social economic order
and improving their life conditions by conferring rights and benefits on them.
The result is that the legal system has lost its credibility for the weaker
section of the Community.
In M.C.Mehta & Another
Vs. Union of India & Others ( AIR 1987 SC 1086), the Supreme Court of India
observed that Article 32 of the Constitution does not merely confer power on
this Court to issue direction, order or writ for the enforcement of fundamental
rights. Instead, it also lays a constitutional obligation on this court to
protect the fundamental rights of the people.
The Court asserted that, in realization of this constitutional
obligation, “ it has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to
forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the
fundamental rights”. The court realized that because of extreme poverty, a
large number of sections cannot approach the court. The fundamental rights have
no meaning for them and in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights
of the marginalized section of society by judicial innovation, the courts by
judicial innovation and creativity started necessary directions and passing orders
in the public interest.
Who
is aggrieved person / Locus Standi
In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Others ( 1976) 1 SCC 671, held that the
traditional rule is flexible enough to take in those cases where the applicant
has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority, even
though he has no proprietary or even a fiduciary interest in the
Subject-Matter. That apart, in exceptional cases even a stranger or a person who was not a
party to the proceedings before the authority, but has a substantial and
genuine interest in the subject- matter of the proceedings will be an aggrieved
person.
The rule of locus standi was
relaxed in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V.Dabholkar & Other ( 1976 scr
306).
In the Mumbai Kamgar Sabha,
Bombay Vs. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Others, AIR 1976 SC 1455, Supreme Court
made conscious efforts to improve the judicial access for the masses by
relaxing the traditional rule of “Locus Standi”.
In Municipal Council, Rathlam V.
Vardhichand & Others AIR 1980 SC 1622, Supreme Court also relaxed the rule
of Locus standi.
In S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India
& Others AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati dismissed the traditional rule
of standing, and replaced it with liberalized modern rule.
In J. Jayalalitha V. Government of Tamil Nadu
& Other ( 1999)1 SCC53, Supreme Court laid down that public interest
ligigation can be filed by any person challenging the misuse or improper use of
any public property including the polical party in power for the reason that
interest of individuals cannot be placed above or preferred to a larger public
interest.
Misuse of PIL
Although PIL has become a popular
tool to raise the issues related to common people, there are examples where the
people have used PIL for their vested interest. To prevent such misuse to the
PIL courts have passed strict orders and framed guidelines for PIL.
In Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West
Bengal ( WP Crl.199/2003), Supreme Court observed that when there is a material
to show that a petition styled as Public Interest Litigation is nothing but a
camouflage to foster personal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Public
Interest Litigation, which is naw 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 a tool in unscrupulous
hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, as well. There must be real and
genuine public Interest Litigation and not merely an adventure or knight errant
of 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 bonafide 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.
These aspects were also highlighted in The
Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 116, Ramjas
Foundation Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993SC 852),K.R.Srinivas Vs. R.M.Premchand
( 1994(6) SCC 620 and S.P.Anad Vs. H.D.Deve Gowda & Others AIR 1997 SC272.
In Janta Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary & Others
(1992) 4 SCC 305, the Supreme Court cautioned that expanded role of courts in
modern “Social” state demand for greater judicial responsibility. The PIL has
given new hope of justice-starved millions of people of this country. The court
must encourage genuine PIL and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.
In Sanjeev Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India &
Other, AIR 2005 SC 2841, Supreme Court imposed a monetary penalty against an
advocate for filing a frivolous and vexatious PIL Petition.
Email to : azeez_nazar@rediffmail.com
Nice work.. Thank you The foreign tourist who are traveling to Kenya must vaccinate themselves with is yellow fever vaccine required for Kenya. To prevent this diseases vaccinate and enjoy your trip
ReplyDelete