PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA

What is Public Interest Litigation

Before getting into the topic of PIL let us know what is public interest?

Public Interest means “any act done for the benefit of public at large in public interest.” Public Interest
Litigation means “a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or
general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” A PIL can be filed for various matters, some of
which are pollution, terrorism, road safety, or any such matters which are concerned with public at
large.

Origin & Development of PIL in India

The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence. The seed
of PIL was sown by Justice Krishna Iyer through this landmark judgement in the year 1976; Mumbai
Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others. Soon thereafter, with the efforts of Justice
Bhagwati, the concept of PIL has evolved and developed to a great extent. PIL has achieved a place of
great importance in our legal system.

Where to file a PIL

Any of these courts can be approached for filing the petition in the interests of the public or for public
welfare:
 Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution of India;
 High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India; and
 The Court of Magistrate under Sec.133 of Cr. P.C. (PIL claiming nuisance caused by people
and affecting public at large, the same can be filed in District Court under Section 133 of
Criminal Procedure Code 1973)

How to file a PIL

The Supreme Court has taken various steps that have given a healthy boost to PIL. The procedural
requirements are very easy and relaxed as compared to filing of other ordinary petitions. Even a letter,
post card, newspaper report or email addressed to the Supreme Court by a person, acting in public
interest has been accepted as a petition. Any simple information received by the court complaining of
a legal injury against a person or a group of persons, who cannot approach the court directly (because
of poverty, disability, social backwardness and the like) can be treated as a PIL. The courts understand
that in such cases it would be unfair to expect a person to incur expenses and approach the court
through ordinary litigation. The courts might also take suo motu cognizance of matters involving
public interest. Suo motu is the power of the court to initiate proceedings against a party by its own
motion. It is pertinent to be noted that once a PIL has been filed, it cannot be withdrawn. However,
the procedure to file a PIL is similar to that of a writ petition. Normally PILs are taken into
consideration if the judges are convinced of the fact that the subject is of significance and is in the
interest of the public.

What is the difference between a PIL and a Writ Petition?

Writs are filed by individuals or institutions for their own benefit and not for public interest, whereas
PILs are filed for a larger good of public.

Who can file a PIL

Earlier it was only a person whose interest was directly affected along with others, whereby his
fundamental right is affected used to file such litigation. A new era of the PIL movement was heralded
by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. In this case it was held that any
member of the public or social action group acting bonafide can invoke the PIL through Writ
Jurisdiction. Any public spirited NGO can also file to espouse a public cause for redressal of public
injury. Person or NGO can argue in person or appoint an advocate to fight the case. the Supreme
Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, laid down four distinct
principles of PIL in India. These principles are as follows:

 a petition need not be filed by the person whose own legal rights are at issue and can be
brought before the court by any public-spirited citizen,
 the person who is filing the petition need not have personal knowledge of the case details,
and he can support his contentions by referring to excerpts like those of newspaper
articles,
 both legal principles and relief can be used in the preliminary stage of the litigation, and
 the scope of litigation can be expanded beyond what was stated in the original petition if
during the progress of the case facts indicate greater injustice

The registration of NGO with minimum seven members is compulsory for filing a PIL under it.

NGOs can be registered in India under any of the following laws:

a. Trust under Indian Trusts Act, 1882
b. Society under Societies Registration Act 1860
c. Section 8 Company under Companies Act, 2013
Can a Government employee file PIL ?
A government employee is governed under All India Service Conduct Rules 1968 and there are certain
limitations. For filing a PIL , an employee has to seek prior permission from his respective authority,
otherwise for consequential effect, the employee will be answerable to his disciplinary authority.
Rule-3, 7, 8, 13 and 17 of The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 are attracted upon him. But in
a landmark Judgment a Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J.Chelameswar
and Justice A.K.Sikri held that right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public
grievances is a constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country
and employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such
right is not available.

The Supreme Court was considering an appeal (Vijay Shankar Panday Vs. Union of India & Another )
filed by an IAS officer Mr.Vijay Shankar Pandey against Disciplinary Proceedings taken against him by
the Government for filing a PIL which ultimately resulted in the formation of SIT in the Black money
Case (Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 1).

The allegation against Mr.Pandey is as follows;

“A Writ Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 titled “Julio F. Ribero and others vs. Govt. of India including
Mr.Pandey, came to be filed under the name and style of India Rejuvination Initiative, a non-
Government Organisation (NGO). The said Writ Petition along with another culminated in a
judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC.
All the charges against Mr.Pndey are in connection with the filing of the said Writ Petition on the
ground that the conduct is violative of the various CONDUCT Rules.

Allowing the Appeal Justice Chelameswar held that “We are at a loss to comprehend how the
filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging
its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to
maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member
of the service”. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is wholly untenable. The
purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass
the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the
Government of India. The action of the respondents is consistent with their conduct clearly recorded
in (2011) 8 SCC 1[6]. The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of
blackmoney by whatever means fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing
but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who
might dare in future to expose any mal-administration. The fact remains, that this Court
eventually agreed with the substance of the complaint pleaded in Writ Petition No.37 of 2010 and
connected matters; and directed an independent inquiry into the issue of black money”.

What are the issues that cannot be filed under PIL?

(Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications).

The Supreme Court has issued a set of PIL guidelines according to which the following matters will not
be allowed as PILs:

 Landlord-tenant matters
 Service matters
 Matters pertaining to pension and gratuity
 Complaints against Central and State government departments and Local Bodies except those
relating to items 1 to 10 mentioned in the list of guidelines
 Admission to medical and other educational institutions
 Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Court or subordinate courts
 In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife, children and parents, the
petitioners may be asked to file a Petition under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. Or a Suit in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest Legal Aid Committee for
legal aid and advice.

Top 20 Landmark Judgments of Public Interest Litigation in India

S.No CASE ISSUE

1. Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar Rights of under trial prisoners

2. Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan Sexual harassment of women at

workplace

3. Javeed Vs. State of Haryana The problem of population explosion as a

national and global issue

4. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India Civic atrocities for allowing untreated

sewage into Ganges.

5. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India Effort to save the person is top priority

for doctors, police, lawyers and other

citizens .

6. MC Mehta vs. state of Tamil Nadu Child labour in organised and

unorganised sector

7. Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs. Union of Bonded workmen living in inhuman

India conditions
 Stringent laws on handling of hazardous
8. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Oleum substances and procedure to set up and
Gas leak Case) run industry with minimal risk to humans
, animals etc.

M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India

9. Prevention and control of environment
(Delhi Vehicular Pollution Case)
pollution

M.C. Mehta v. Archaeological Survey of

10. Protection of Delhi Monuments
India and Others

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others

11. Protecting the Beas River from polluting

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.

12. Ground water Pollution
Union of India

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

13. The Children Languishing in Jails

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and

14. Safeguard and protection from Radiation
Others

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and

15. The Taj Mahal Case
Others

Samatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

16. Protection of Tribal and forest land in

Scheduled areas

Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India

17. Impugned section 66 A of IT act was

struck down

NALSA Vs Union of India

18. Recognition of rights of transgenders as

third genders and treat them a minorities

Minicipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Vardichan

19. People’s involvement in matters of Public

Importance.
 P. Guptha vs. Union of India
20. Locus Standi of lawyers to file a writ

petition by way of PIL