ABSTRACT
This article explores the relationship, the role and the importance of Public Interest Litigation in context to constitutional rights in India. PIL an abbreviation that stands for public interest litigation is an equipment, a tool that promotes the general welfare of public, could be called as well settled or established and implemented tool of law in India. While on the other side, the constitutional rights are the rights entrusted to citizens and that are guided and protected by the rule of law and country’s constitution. Their relationship and role hold some deepened facts to understand how they work for each other as legal elements and tools and safeguards people interest.
Introduction to PIL and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Public Interest Litigation, the tool itself refers to its work and states its relation with specific term i.e. ‘public interest ‘. PIL is a mechanism, an interpretation of judiciary itself. It has not been defined or stated in constitution but the judicial interpretation considers it as interest of the vast majority of society in India.
Public Interest Litigation is defined as, “It is a legal action initiated in the court for the enforcement of public interest. “According to this mechanism of public interest and judiciary “If you’re not directly related with the cause of concern or the cause of the case, still you can come to the court and seek judicial redressal or seek judicial remedy, why because you’re enforcing the welfare or justice on behalf of public interest.” The main motive of PIL is to fight for genuine public wrong or injury by filing a petition in the court to safeguard and protect public interest. PIL is filed in High Court under Article 226 and in Supreme Court under Article 32 and when a PIL is filed under Article 32 it questions the concerns related to the enforcement of fundamental rights.
As fundamental right, are stated in Indian constitution, a mere declaration of this rights is useless. There is a need of mechanism which enforces them and is concern to its violation that is the article 32 which is heart and soul of Indian constitution look after the enforcement is safeguarded by PIL.
Now talking about constitutional rights. It is significant to first make a differentiation between constitutional and fundamental rights. Fundamental, rights are the subset of constitutional rights and they have given a specific status within constitution and without any kind of discrimination in relation with sex, age, place of birth race, religion and other factors that are granted to citizens. A statement says that all fundamental rights are constitutional rights but all constitutional right are not fundamental rights.
ORIGIN OF PIL IN INDIA
When legal system was unable to provide representation to certain groups which includes minorities, weaker section, poor, and environmentalists who were unable to realize what to do when they face violation and which justice remedy will help them to seek justice and safeguard their liberty. And that’s when PIL came to its origin and action. The legal tool originated in the United States in 1960 providing social justice and judicial remedy to ones who are in need, to those who are violated by authorities in power and to whose who are fighting for violation if rights, prevention and prohibition to acts disrupting environment and much more.
But when talking about India, it came into plan in 1980s, as it emerged by two pioneers J.P. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer. The supreme court judge Bhagwati introduced PIL concept & absolute liability in India. And to her support V.R. Krishna Iyer worked with her on spreading this judicial activism.
In India, a PIL can be file by individual in case regarding public, environment, welfare and rights could file a PIL under Article 23 and 226 of Indian Constitution. Cases like RLEK v. Government of India, Bandhua Mukti Morcha and Asia Workers Judgement case are examples of origin and evolution of PIL in India.[1]
SIGNIFICANCE OF PIL
Since 1980 it has been seen that PIL simultaneously working as legal aid providing, safeguarding, and ensuring justice to individuals and groups who are considered to be weaker and marginalized in society. And it holds justice to those individuals and groups who can’t file petition on their own due to issues like illiteracy, illegal detention of property, and poverty etc. and this confronts that PIL not only provide justice but also signifies the right of economically backward, socially backward, and aggrieved class of society.
PIL as an equipment to judicial activism also looks after ordinary classes for example Olga Telly v. Bombay Municipal Corporationn1985 case where the life of pavement dwellers often called as slum people who were facing the violation of their right to life regarding housing and shelter were given consideration and equal importance as other respectful groups and in result of filing a PIL.
On What Grounds OR Interest Matters a PIL could be filed
- Social and Economic Justice
- Protection of basic Human Rights
- Welfare of children
- Food, Adulteration, Preservation of heritage, Culture, Forest and Wildlife
- Right of the poor and Disadvantaged
- Protection of environment
- Violation of religious rights or basic fundamental rights
But the cases falling under the categories like admission to education which concepts to admission to medical or other educational institution, service matter related to pension or gratuity, landlord and tenant matters & petition pertaining for early hearing of cases pending in high court and subordinate courts, will not be entertained as public interest litigation as these categories does not amount to any concern related to public or their interest or concepts to welfare of public.
If you carefully read the grounds TO FILE A PIL you will see that all the interest matters subjects to justice, right to minorities and their interest, the violation of basic rights could be fundamental, constitutional, or human rights, where a subject matter ensures and enforces the protection and preservation of environment, heritage, culture and etc. Other than these the matter related to personal gain or wrong like landlord or tenant, hearing of cases, or any other service matter of pension or matter of personal interest rather than public doesn’t allow you to file the petition.
CHALLENGES AND MISUSE
HYPER PIL DRIVE IN COURTS
Over a data given by SUPREME COURTS OBSERVER on and average the supreme court receives 25,000and more than that of PIL cases. And this has been continuously rising from ever since 1979 when the first PIL was filed in Hussainara Khaaton v. State of Bihar case and after that Bombay Municipal Case, Vishakha Case, M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and no of landmark cases were filed as a petitioned as a PIL. Approximately 9,23,277 PILs has been received by supreme court between 1985 to 2019, which costs to 26,379 on an average of a year. This is due to increased judicial awareness and activism between the citizens of state and government.
But the hyper PIL drive has become a challenge to courts of India as this pressure, overweighing of PILs day by day, increasing the number of pending cases leading to slow down of courts.
IRRELEVANT & TRIVIAL FILING OF PILs
PIL is a legal element petitioned for public interest, and the name public interest litigation itself reflects the interest of public but the question arises that a PIL is always petitioned in favor of public interest? Then no, because over the decades many times it has seen that frivolous PILs are filed for political and economical gains which are concerned with one’s private interest causing violation to grounds of filing a PIL, harming public interest and dignity of social welfare and misusing PIL as an element of personal gain. Not only disrespecting it’ s purpose to seek justice, protecting rights, preventing violation of human rights and also the legal system duties of providing transparency, accountability.
Case laws
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
The landmark case Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which holds the role of public interest litigation defending the constitutional rights concerned with right to speedy trial and right to life under the Article 21 present in the Indian constitution. This article 21, which is known as “heart of fundamental right”, guarantees, protection of personal liberty and right to life limitations to certain protocols and procedures prescribed by law. This landmark case focused on the fundamental right, that is essential for every prisoner, the right to free legal aid and right to speedy trial.
This landmark case resulted in enforcement of fundamental right of speedy trial and providing free legal aid to every prisoner. And marks the commencement of public interest litigation in India as it was file for the prisoner and their interest and subjects back to early PIL’s filed in India.[2]
Olga Telly v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Olga Telly v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) the landmark case, where the PIL was filed by the journalist of Olga Telly against Bombay Municipal Corporation. The issue was regarding the eviction of pavement dwellers facing violation regarding housing and slums, as they were getting evicted from their pavement (slum housing) by Bombay Municipal Corporation was claiming that the eviction is necessary for beautification of city. Such eviction was violating the fundamental rights of the pavement dwellers, the right to life (under Article 21). In this case PIL became a rescue to residents of slum safeguarding their right to life concerning with basic necessities like housing and shelter.[3]
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
The Bhanwari Devi a social worker who was fighting against child marriage in 1992 was gang raped and killed. The case went to lower court and the lowered court acquitted the accused persons on the basis of lack of proper evidence. The judgment aggrieved a group of women and they filed PIL against State of Rajasthan seeking the appropriate remedy in interest to women’s safety in workplace and sexual harassment. The landmark case was named as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997). The petitioners were seeking justice for Bhawani Devi as she was not only raped but killed too and raising the question of unnoticed issue of sexual harassment that was being noticed by other women at workplace.
The PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, as this article includes right to constitutional remedies. This right provides guarantees that citizens can approach the supreme court to enforce their fundamental rights. The case amount to result in providing guidelines which is specifically called as Vishaka Guidelines, providing definition of sexual harassment, and procedures for addressing it in workplace. The key aspects of Vishaka Guidelines were committees like Internal Complain Committee (ICC), Local Complaint Committee (LCC), penalties and the fundamental rights in relation to sexual harassment in Article 14, 15 19(1), (g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.[4]
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1985 onwards)
This is Ganga pollution case is the first case regarding environmental public interest legal proceedings. All over India, Kanpur is known for its tannery business which is so next to the river ganga that the tannery business are contaminating Ganga over centuries. Ganga in India said as a pure river of Holi purpose and religious devotion. But due to Kanpur business, the holy river was getting worsened day-by-day. The actual case started way back in 1985, when Ganga was on smokes of fire due to a single match stick toast by a smoker, it was not only due to a single match stick but due to layer of toxic chemicals over the river, the fire was for more than 30 hours. The environmental lawyer and social activist MC Mehta file the PIL in Supreme Court against 89 respondents from where from few respondents were from Union of India. On the basis of reason that government authorities haven’t taken the effective action to stop destruction of Ganga and mainly to stop the environment pollution of river. In some law reports, this case referred to as Ganga Pollution Case. The series of directives were issued by Supreme Court of India to prevent and control pollution of the river like sewage treatment plants, pollution control devices, factory location, etc. and court highlighted the importance of protecting environment specially mentioning Article 48-A, Article 51-A, section 24 which ensures the prohibition of the disposable pollution of streams including water courses.
The court also involved the fundamental duty to protect and improve natural environment, which is imposed by article 52(g) of Indian Constitution.[5]
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The landmark is in which the right to freedom of speech the liberty to speech and the freedom of expression came to life again. In 2012, Mumbai police arrested 2 girls Rinu Srinivasan and Shaheen Dhada for posting a critical and harsh comment on Facebook against the curfew imposed regarding the wake of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray’s death. Though girls were released later, but this action of police revoked many social activists, saying that the police has took advantage of their power by invoking section 66A of Information Technology Act of 2000 which thereafter referred as IT Act. The act includes the punishment for sending offensive, disrespectful and provocative text and messages through communication services. And also doing this police abbreviated the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.The section 66A includes the area of cognizable offences that allows the officers to catch and arrests, someone and investigate the case without any warrant. Due to this several arrests of people made by police throughout the country, saying that the text messages were “abusive and disruptive context”, although it was mostly political opinions.
Later in 2013, the Union government recommended a provision to arrest the person made under 66A of IT act. The Central government stated that no individual shall be arrested by police without prior authorization of the superior officer, and that officers should not below rank of Inspector General of police. Hereafter, people from all over the country were filing numerous petitions, abolishing and overturning unconstitutional provis9n of IT. Those petitions were consolidated into a single PIL case named as Shreya. Singhal v. Union of India.
The outcome was, that the Supreme Court of India Entirely strike down section 66Aof Information Technology act of 2000. And The judgement preserved and save the freedom of speech and expression, given to the citizen of India under the Article19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution.[6]
CONCLUSION
There is a crucial and significant rule of PIL in promoting, enforcing, safeguarding, upholding the constitutional rights in India. This judicial tool has played a great role in promoting social justice while having its own challenges to ensure welfare in the state and reflecting the public interest. PIL has it own challenges and misuse, but with its role In managing state’s accountability by filing cases to ensure government’s transparency and seeking the remedy for violation of human, Constitutional and fundamental rights, ensuring justice against corruption and pollution and fighting for environment, children and women upliftment and safety it has played it’s definite role as a legal element of justice ensuring the public interest and welfare to everyone.
Although, PIL has work like justice activism over decades there is still need to maintain effectiveness, transparency, accountability & efficiency and still need to rule out the challenges and it’s misuses and maintaining it’ s dignity and responsibility in upcoming future cases that need the support, remedy and a tool like PIL which surely will give justice to ones who are struggling for it.
REFRENCES
https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-preamble-of-the-indian-constitution/
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-si
nghal-v-union-of-india/
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/maneka-gandhi-case-1978-sc-judgements/
https://www.ijllr.com/post/environmental-issues-to-justice-via-pil
[1] https://blog.ipleaders.in/origin-and-development-of-pil-in-india/
[2]https://blog.ipleaders.in/hussainara-khatoon-v-state-of-bihar-1979-case-analysis/#:~:text=This%20is%20a%20landmark%20case,public%20intere
st%20litigation%20in%20India.
[3] https://blog.ipleaders.in/olga-tellis-v-bombay-municipal-corporation/
[4] https://blog.ipleaders.in/vishaka-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-1997/
[5] https://lawfoyer.in/mc-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ganga/
[6] https://blog.ipleaders.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-india-case-rejuvenat
ed-liberty-speech-expression-country/
This article has been written by Mahek Patel, a 3rd semester law student from Balaji Law College.
