Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) represents a significant departure from the traditional rule of ‘locus standi’, which mandates that only individuals directly affected by an action can approach the court. The concept emerged as a mechanism to address systemic injustices and provide access to justice for marginalized communities who often lack the resources or knowledge to pursue legal remedies themselves. Born out of the socio-economic realities of India, particularly in the 1980s when numerous public grievances remained unaddressed due to procedural barriers, PIL has dramatically altered the landscape of judicial activism and social reform. This answer will explore its evolution, objectives, key cases, and inherent limitations.
Understanding Locus Standi and its Exception – Public Interest Litigation
The doctrine of locus standi (literally 'place of standing') is a fundamental principle in legal proceedings. It dictates that only a person who has suffered direct injury or possesses a special interest in the subject matter can file a suit. This was intended to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure courts dealt with genuine disputes affecting specific individuals.
Evolution of PIL in India
The genesis of PIL in India can be traced back to the 1980s. While the concept existed informally before, it formally emerged with the case of R.K. Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (1977). Here, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, recognizing the difficulty faced by undertrial prisoners in pursuing their rights, allowed a journalist to file a writ petition on their behalf.
Key Milestones
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): This landmark case highlighted the plight of thousands of undertrials languishing in jails for years without trial. The Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution, allowing PIL to be filed on behalf of these individuals.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), establishing a ‘procedure established by law’ as being synonymous with 'due process'. It further paved the way for judicial intervention in matters of public interest.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): This case, often considered the quintessential PIL case, involved the release of bonded laborers. Justice Bhagwati allowed newspapers to file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so themselves. This solidified the concept of ‘holistic public interest’.
Aims and Objectives of PIL
PIL aims to:
- Provide Access to Justice:** It enables individuals or organizations to approach courts for redressal of grievances affecting a large segment of society.
- Promote Public Welfare:** It facilitates judicial intervention in matters concerning environmental protection, human rights violations, consumer safety, and other issues of public concern.
- Hold Government Accountable:** It serves as a tool to scrutinize governmental actions and policies, ensuring they adhere to constitutional principles and legal mandates.
- Address Systemic Injustices:** PIL tackles problems that affect vulnerable groups who may be unable to individually seek redressal.
Landmark Cases Illustrating the Scope of PIL
Beyond the cases mentioned earlier, several other significant judgments have shaped the scope and application of PIL:
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1996): This case concerning air pollution in Delhi resulted in directives for stricter emission standards for vehicles.
- Vishal Arun Anil Dev v. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of PIL and ensure their proper adjudication.
Drawbacks and Challenges Associated with PIL
Despite its benefits, PIL has faced criticism due to several drawbacks:
- Misuse and Frivolity: The relaxed ‘locus standi’ requirement has led to a surge in frivolous PILs filed for ulterior motives or publicity.
- ‘PIL Industry’: The emergence of individuals and organizations solely focused on filing PILs, often with vested interests, has been criticized.
- Judicial Overreach: Some argue that PIL encourages judicial activism, blurring the lines between judicial review and policy-making.
- Dilution of Locus Standi:** The constant expansion of who can file a PIL weakens the initial intent to protect vulnerable groups.
- Time and Resource Drain: Courts are burdened by an increasing number of frivolous PILs, diverting resources from genuine cases.
The Supreme Court has attempted to address these issues by laying down guidelines for filing PILs (Vishal Arun Anil Dev v. Union of India), requiring affidavits verifying the information presented and imposing costs on petitioners who file frivolous petitions.
PIL Guidelines - 2003
| Guideline | Description |
|---|---|
| Affidavit | Every PIL must be accompanied by a verified affidavit stating the facts. |
| Cause of Action | The petitioner must demonstrate that they have knowledge of the cause of action through documented evidence. |
| Public Interest | It must be established that the matter is for public interest and not personal gain. |
| Costs | Courts can impose costs on petitioners filing frivolous PILs. |
Conclusion
Public Interest Litigation has undeniably revolutionized access to justice in India, enabling the redressal of widespread grievances and promoting public welfare. However, the relaxation of the ‘locus standi’ principle, while intended to broaden participation, has also created opportunities for misuse and judicial overreach. The Supreme Court's guidelines are crucial but require stricter enforcement to ensure PIL remains a powerful tool for social justice rather than a vehicle for frivolous litigation. A balance is needed – preserving the spirit of access to justice while curbing abuse – to safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of this vital legal mechanism.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.