Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

• Defined by SC in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (1993): Legal action initiated for the enforcement of public/general interest affecting legal rights or liabilities of a class/community.
• Public interest = interest affecting a specific group’s legal rights or entitlements.
• Originated in USA in the 1960s, adopted by Indian judiciary to serve social justice goals.
  

History of PIL in India

• Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976): Justice Krishna Iyer recognized PIL’s role in supporting the poor and marginalized.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Highlighted inhuman conditions of undertrial prisoners; affirmed Right to Speedy Trial.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Justice P.N. Bhagwati allowed any public-spirited person to approach courts under Art. 32 & 226 on behalf of disadvantaged sections.
  

Key Features of PIL

• No definition in Constitution or statute, developed via judicial interpretation.
• Constitutional basis: Articles 32 (SC) & 226 (HC) empower courts to hear PILs via writs.
• Relaxation of locus standi: Any public-spirited person can approach courts on behalf of the voiceless.
• Non-adversarial in nature: Focus on justice, not personal gain.
• Proactive role of judiciary: Courts take suo motu cognizance or act on letters/public petitions.
• Procedural flexibility: Courts may entertain letters or informal petitions in genuine cases.
  

Significance of PIL in India

• Expanded the ambit of Article 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies.
• Made justice more accessible to marginalized sections of society.
• Enabled courts to function as custodians of public rights and ensure governmental accountability.
• Brought social and political reforms through judicial directions.
• Has led to legislative and policy changes, especially in environmental and labor issues.
  

Landmark PIL Judgments

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984):
   • Bonded laborers’ rights; ordered their release and rehabilitation.
     
2. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985):
   • Environmental protection; limestone mining banned in Mussoorie.
     
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987):
   • Introduced absolute liability in environmental law.
     
4. PUCL v. Union of India (1997):
   • Right to legal aid and protection from custodial torture included under Article 21.
     
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
   • Issued guidelines on sexual harassment at workplaces; led to 2013 legislation.
     

Factors Responsible for Increase in PILs

• Increased legal awareness and education.
• Strengthening of judicial institutions and streamlined PIL procedures.
• Media spotlight on public issues, raising consciousness.
• Growth in civil society activism and NGOs engaging in litigation.
• Some political encouragement and legitimation of public causes via courts.
  

Issues/Challenges with PIL

• Misuse: For political mileage, personal grievances, or publicity.
• Delays: Due to judicial backlog, pendency increases with PIL volume.
• Poor implementation: Verdicts often not executed effectively by executive.
• Judicial overreach: Courts entering policy domains reserved for legislature/executive.
• Overburdening judiciary: Time-consuming nature of PILs can slow down other proceedings.
  

SC Guidelines on PILs (1998 & 2003)

Matters Admissible as PILs:

• Bonded labor, women’s safety, child abuse, custodial violence, environmental issues, caste atrocities.
  

Matters Not Admissible as PILs:

• Landlord-tenant disputes, service matters, admissions, pension issues, pending case hearings.
  

SC Guidelines to Prevent PIL Misuse

• Scrutiny of petitioner’s credentials and public interest involved.
• Reject frivolous/malicious petitions; impose penalties on misuse.
• Ensure no personal or political motives behind PILs.
• Formulate rules for High Courts to filter and manage PIL workload.
• Only genuine public harm or injury should be taken up.
  

Conclusion

PILs remain one of the most effective tools in India’s democratic framework to uphold constitutional morality, promote inclusive justice, and ensure executive accountability. However, maintaining a balance between genuine activism and judicial restraint is crucial to prevent erosion of credibility and institutional overreach.