The articulation ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been acquired from American jurisprudence. It was intended to give legal portrayal to already unrepresented bunches like poor people, racial minorities, disorderly shoppers, and enthusiastic residents about the ecological issues, and so forth. Legal action is required to protect “public interest,” such as preventing pollution or terrorism, ensuring the security of transportation, or preventing the risk of construction. Any matter where the interest of the public, in general, is impacted can be challenged by documenting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in a court of law. Public interest litigation isn’t characterized in any rule or in any demonstration. In the eyes of judges, the public’s objective has been comprehended. When the courts use their legal authority, it is known as legal activism. In any case, the individual recording the request should demonstrate as per the general inclination of the court that the appeal is being petitioned for public interest and not similarly as a frivolous litigation by a snoop. The court would itself be able to take insight of the matter and continue suo motu or cases can start on the appeal of any public vivacious person. (Surya Dave, Public Interest Litigation: A Critical Review, Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 19-40, 2009 available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1424236.)
A portion of the issues which are engaged under PIL are:
(Rakesh Kumar, Public Interest Litigation, Volume-3, Issue-7, July-2014 available at https://www.worldwidejournals.com/global-journal-for-research-analysis-GJRA/recent_issues_pdf/2014/July/July_2014_1565265399_118.pdf. )
Throughout the long term, the courts in India have formed different standards with respect to PILs:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (IR 1997 SC 3011.)
Bhanwari Devi, a member of the government’s anti-child marriage campaign in rural Rajasthan, tried to halt the marriage of a one-year-old girl. People in Bhanwari Devi’s neighborhood started harassing her and her family with threats and launching a socio-economic boycott. A group of five men attacked Bhanwari Devi on September 22, 1992, and raped her. When Bhanwari Devi pursued justice, she ran against a lot of roadblocks. Naina Kapur, a lawyer who had witnessed Bhanwari Devi’s criminal trial and was frustrated by the incapacity of the criminal justice system to provide tangible remedies and restore the victim’s dignity, decided to file a PIL in the Supreme Court to fight sexual harassment in the workplace.
Vishaka’s writ petition was brought in 1992 on behalf of five non-governmental organizations against the State of Rajasthan, its Women & Child Welfare Department, its Department of Social Welfare, and the Union of India. According to the Vishaka ruling, sexual harassment is “a clear violation” of basic constitutional rights and liberty. In order to protect and implement the right to gender equality in the workplace, the recommendations provided employers with a definition of “sexual harassment”, a list of methods for harassment prevention, and a description of complaint processes that should be “strictly observed in all workplaces.”
Javed v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 3057.)
Petitioner Javed challenged the legitimacy of a coercive population control rule that regulated the election of the panchayat. Under the new law passed by Haryana Government “A person who has more than two live children” was barred from holding certain positions in panchayats. In order to promote family planning, the two-child rule was established with the notion that other people would follow the example of limited reproduction set by their elected representatives.
Public Interest Litigation has produced astonishing results which were unthinkable three decades ago. Degraded bonded labourers, tortured under trials and women prisoners, humiliated inmates of protective women’s homes, blinded prisoners, exploited children, beggars, and many others have been given relief through judicial intervention. The greatest contribution of PIL has been to enhance the accountability of the governments towards the human rights of the poor.
The PIL develops a new jurisprudence of the accountability of the state for constitutional and legal violations adversely affecting the interests of the weaker elements in the community. However, the Judiciary should be cautious enough in the application of PILs to avoid judicial overreach that is violative of the principle of separation of power. Besides, the frivolous PILs with vested interests must be discouraged to keep their workload manageable.
Sidharth Rajan
Student Editor, LawDiktat
]]>