Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) are litigations are writ petitions brought before the High Court or Supreme Court of India to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged. Court has interfered and given directions in while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the under privileged who are unable to come to court due to some disadvantage. The Courts are of the view that right to life conferred under Art. 21 includes the right to have the clear air,water and atmosphre. Thus anyone brings a petition to protect the enviornment is treated as PIL.

Locus standi (the person who can sue ) for filing a litigation is normlly available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason violation of his legal right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of his legal right or legally protected interest of any such action. This rule has gone a radical change when for the first time the Government decided to transfer the judges of the High Court for the first time. The said proposal was challenged by an advocate called "S.P.Gupta". The rule of locus stand has been widened and the Supreme Court of India for the first time held that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public inquiry arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, the court held. It is an historical judgment which opened the Pandora's box for litigations by any person.

An interesting question first arose before the Supreme Court of India when M.C.Mehta filed a public interest litigation to protect the Ganga River from pollution. In common law the Municipal Corporation can be restrained by an injunction in an action brought by the riparian owner who has suffered on account of pollution of the water in a river caused by the discharging into the river insufficiently treated sewerage from discharging such sewage into the river. It would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as a public interest litigation, it is objected by the opposite parties. But the court held that nuisance caused by the pollution is a public nuisance, which is widespread in range and indiscriminate in its effect and it would not be reasonable to expect any particular person to take proceedings to stop it as distinct from the community at large. The petition filed by M.C.Mehta has been entertained by the Court and issued orders. Thereafter several litigations were were entertained in public interest.

The development of the public interest law, especially the locus standi, has started to be misused in many litigations. A PIL was filed to compel judge to vacate office on the basis of resolution passed by the Bar Association. The SC explained the procedure for making complaint against a judge and held that if the complaint relates to the Judge of the High Court, the Chief Justice of that High Court , after verification, and if necessary , after confidential enquiry from his independent source should satisfy himself about the truth of the imputation made by the Bar Association through its office-bearers against the judge and consult the Chief Justice of India where deemed necessary by placing all the information with him. The Bar Association could remain a useful arm of the judiciary and in the case of sagging reputation of the particular judge, the Bar Association could take up the matter with the Chief Justice of the High Court and await his response for the action taken thereafter for a reasonable period.

Later on when a PIL is filed challenging the transfer of a Judge from the High Court , the SC made it clear that no one other than the transferred Judge himself can question the validity of a transfer, it is unnecessary.

Enactment having disastrous effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals who have illegally transgrassed international border and are residing in India has been challenged before the SC. When the locus standi of the Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) court has held that any citizen is entitled to bring to the notice of the court by filing a writ petition. Petition by MLA cannot be rejected on ground that he is trying to achieve a purpose which his party could not achieve politically.

If there is any allegation of violation of statutory rules which have been brought to the notice of the authorities and if the concerned authorities do not perform their statutory obligation any aggrieved citizen can always bring to the notice of the High Court about the inaction of the statutory authorities and in such event it would always open to pass appropriate orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact that it has been filed by business rival is irrelevant.

When valuable property was doled out at the behest of those who are duty bound to protect the same, PIL is maintainable. SC has held that in such cases where public interest has been given a complete go-by and haste decision at the behest of others public interest litigation is maintainable .

Assignment of Government Land to private persons, can it be questioned by a private person. Kerala High Court has held that in case where authorities are taking steps to assign government property to private persons discarding and by-passing statutory inhibitions and mandatory provisions a petition brought under Art.226 of the Constitution to interdict the perpetuation of the illegality and resultant injury to public cannot be thrown overboard by conducting an investigation into the juristic existence of the petitioner . In such cases, petitioners' role get transformed into that of a mere informant enabling the court to take cognizance of the issue.

Whether a third party can question the conviction under Cr.P.C or any law in a PIL ? SC answering the question negatively held that no fundamental right of the petitioner is violated; if at all, the case sought to be made out is that the fundamental right of the two convicts have been violated. If that were permitted any and every person could challenge convictions recorded day in and day out by courts even if the persons convicted do not desire to do so and are inclined to acquiesce in the decision. Therefore the petitioner not authorised by any body and no allegation of violation of their fundamental right he has no Locus Standi. Third party can be allowed to represent the convict only if they are under some disability recognised by law, the court clarified.

If the State fails to appeal against the acquittal of a criminal, a citizen can move an appeal in the Supreme Court, and that court can take action through its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.136 of the Constitution, SC held in another case.

A Public Interest Litigant has no right to question the mode of collection of evidence of the investigating agency, SC held. Neither an accused nor a public interest litigant has right to question the mode of collection of evidence of investigation agency and interfere in the progress of investigation.

A writ petition by representative body like Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and Supreme Court Bar Association for directions to the Union of India to take immediate steps to enable Inquiry Committee constitution under the Judges (Enquiry) Act to discharge its functions under the Act and to restrain the concerned judge from performing judicial functions during pendency of proceedings before the Committee is maintainable. The Constitutional protection to judges is not for their personal benefit, but is one of the means of protecting the judiciary and its independence and is therefore, in the larger public interest. The law as to standing to sue in public interest action has undergone vast change over the years and recognised liberal standards for locus standi, expanding the principle of locus standi SC held.Now the Government of India has proposed to constitute National Judicial Council (NJC) with powers to investigate complaints including powers to search and seizure.