Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice
In India, during the last three and a half decades, the system of Public Interest Litigation has become acknowledged as a distinguishing feature of the higher judiciary. The term 'public law litigation' was first popularized by American academic Abram Chayes to describe the practice of lawyers or public-spirited individuals who seek to effect social change through court-ordered decrees that reform legal rules, enforce existing laws, and articulate public norms. He highlighted four distinguishing characteristics of public law litigation in the United States that are comparable to PIL cases in India. First, party membership has been liberalized. Today, any party with an "interest" in the dispute can join the lawsuit. Though "interest" has been carefully defined at times to protect efficiency concerns, courts have responded by enabling class-action claims that are more flexible in terms of the parties involved. Second, the courts have placed greater emphasis on equitable remedy.
Prof. Chayes also cited injunctive relief as an example of this procedural evolution. He said that injunctions impose far more constraints on a party's future behavior than the danger of future liability. The injunction remains in effect, and a party may seek a future court order to amend or modify the injunction if the circumstances warrant it. Finally, via an injunction, "the court takes public responsibility for any consequences of its decree that may adversely affect strangers to the action." Equitable relief, unlike standard monetary relief, is more concerned with balancing the parties' interests. Unlike traditional types of litigation, public law litigation is concerned not just with past incidents or occurrences, but also with defending against activities that are currently taking place or may occur in the future. Professor Chayes refers to this method of information-finding as "fact evaluation." Public law litigation affects not just the persons representing opposing sides of a dispute, but also the public good. As a result, the court must have a role in identifying and analyzing facts that may influence the outcome of the claim. Finally, the decree must differ in public law litigation. The court seeks to influence future occurrences of action, therefore its judgment cannot be rationally drawn from the "nature of the legal harm suffered." He suggested a mediator between the parties, in order to ensure their continued cooperation.
Furthermore, the court should establish its own knowledge and information to guarantee that the decision effectively resolves the issue. According to his statements, "the trial judge has passed beyond even the role of legislator and has become a policy planner and manager."
PIL in India: Public Interest. Litigation can be roughly described as 'litigation for the preservation of public interest'. Its unmistakable goal is to relieve the agony of all people who have suffered the consequences of inhumane treatment at the hands of other humans. Perspicuity in public life and fair judicial action are the correct solutions to the growing threat of legal rights violations. It establishes new law about the state's culpability for constitutional and legal breaches that harm the interests of the community's weaker parts.
Until the 1960s and 1970s, the notion of litigation in India was still in its infancy and was viewed as a private activity to vindicate private entrenched interests. Litigation consists mostly of some action undertaken and sustained by certain persons, generally to solve their personal grievances or difficulties. Thus, the injured person or aggrieved party had the right to initiate and continue litigation. Even this was significantly constrained by the resources accessible to those persons. There were little coordinated activities or attempts to address larger concerns affecting certain consumer groups or the entire public. As a result, there was no connection between the rights granted by the Indian Constitution and people of the nation, i.e. laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of citizens, but the great majority of illiterate citizens are denied the same.
However, the entire scene altered in the 1980s when the Supreme Court of India introduced the idea of public interest litigation (PIL). In a series of innovative initiatives, Indian courts responded to the clarion demand for justice by first acknowledging that the conventional system of litigation, which was extremely individualistic and adversarial, was ill-suited to address the collective needs of society's downtrodden. They relied on the Constitution's broad power and other sources, such as the Directive principles, in India to develop an appropriate method to advance and protect fundamental rights, and they used this power to foster a public interest litigation system to fulfill the constitutional promise of a social and economic order based on equality. Judges who were proactive and wise used their knowledge to improve the way that legal resources were distributed, provide underprivileged people more access to the courts, and give formal legal guarantees good and useful meaning. This pattern demonstrates the significant differences between the current informal justice system, in which the judiciary fulfills administrative judicial functions, and the conventional justice delivery system. PIL is an essential critique of the "laissez faire" approach to conventional law.
The legal revolution of the 1980s was largely attributed to the outstanding work of Justices P N Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer. As a result, any Indian citizen, consumer group, or social action group can approach the nation's highest court to seek legal remedies in any situation where the interests of the public at large or a particular group of people are at risk. Additionally, public interest claims might be brought without having to pay high court costs, which are necessary for private civil action.
But only recently has the nation's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) system begun to reveal its own set of challenges and disadvantages. In actuality, the legitimate causes and cases of public interest have faded into the background, and careless PIL activists throughout the nation have begun to play a significant but unhelpful role in the courtroom. They attempt to replace common remedies with this amazing one, which is more affordable.
Judiciary and Public Interest Litigation in India: Landmark Decisions.
Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar was one of the first public interest lawsuit instances. The case pertained to a sequence of pieces that were included in a notable periodical, the Indian Express, revealing the predicament of detainees awaiting trial in the state of Bihar. An counsel brought the Court's attention to the appalling conditions of these inmates through a writ petition. Many of them had served jail terms that exceeded the maximum amount of time that could be imposed for the offenses they were accused of. The advocate's locus standi to support the writ petition was acknowledged by the Supreme Court. After then, the Court issued rulings in a number of cases that established the "right to a speedy trial" as a fundamental component of the defense of life and personal freedom.
Shortly afterward, two eminent legal scholars submitted writ petitions to the Supreme Court, drawing attention to a number of legal irregularities that they said violated Article 21 of the Constitution. These included the appalling circumstances that existed in among other things, the use of minors for homosexual activities and the underpayment of bonded laborers' salaries. The Supreme Court acknowledged their right to speak for the hordes of afflicted people and issued directives and rulings that significantly improved their lot in life. In a different case, journalist Ms. Sheela Barse focused on the predicament of female inmates housed in Bombay's police prisons. She said that they had experienced violence while in custody. The Director of the College of Social Work, Bombay, received instructions from the Court after it took notice of the case. He was ordered the task of going to the Bombay Central Jail and interviewing different female inmates to find out if they had experienced maltreatment or torture. In this respect, he was requested to provide a report to the Court. Based on his conclusions, the Court issued directives that stipulated that accused women may only be questioned in the presence of a female police officer and that female inmates could only be held in specially designated female lock-ups under the supervision of female constables.
After the ruling in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, public interest litigation took on a new dimension known as "epistolary jurisdiction." It all started with a letter to a Supreme Court judge penned by a prisoner incarcerated. The inmate said that a Head Warder had violently attacked another inmate. The Court saw the letter as a writ petition and expressed the following opinions while giving other directives:
"...technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are found".
In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand the Court recognized the locus standi of a group of citizens who sought directions against the local Municipal Council for removal of open drains that caused stench as well as diseases. The Court, recognizing the right of the group of citizens, asserted that if the:
"...centre of gravity of justice is to shift as indeed the Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation, the court must consider the issues as there is need to focus on the ordinary men."
The Supreme Court of India granted the motion of an attorney in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, citing a news article headlined "Law Helps the Injured to Die" that was printed in The Hindustan Times, a national daily. The petitioner raised awareness of the challenges encountered by individuals hurt in car accidents and other incidents in obtaining immediate, life-saving medical care, since several medical facilities and physicians declined to treat them until certain legal and procedural requirements were met in these medico-legal situations. The criminal justice system's procedural requirements must be adhered to, but the Supreme Court ordered hospitals to give these wounded patients immediate medical attention.
In several other cases, the Supreme Court has responded proactively to the shifting demands of society by recognizing and addressing these requirements. Thus, a flexible system of public interest litigation was created through the broad liberalization of the locus standi rule. A seven-judge panel in the S.P. Gupta v. Union of India case gave public interest litigation a significant boost. According to the ruling, bar organizations have the legal right to submit writs through public interest litigation. Since the executive's practice of unilaterally moving High Court justices jeopardized the judiciary's independence, it was acknowledged in this specific case that they had a right to raise concerns. Explaining the liberalization of the concept of locus standi, the court opined:
"It must now be regarded as well-settled law where a person who has suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or whose legal right or legally protected interest is violated, is unable to approach the court on account of some disability or it is not practicable for him to move the court for some other sufficient reasons, such as his socially or economically disadvantaged position, some other person can invoke the assistance of the court for the purpose of providing judicial redress to the person wronged or injured, so that the legal wrong or injury caused to such person does not go unredressed and justice is done to him."
The distinctive public interest litigation model that has developed in India focuses on creating social and political space for the underprivileged and other vulnerable groups in society, in addition to examining issues like consumer protection, gender justice, preventing environmental pollution, and ecological destruction. Affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, food availability, access to clean air, safe working conditions, political representation, and the control of prison conditions are just a few of the rights and protections over which the courts have rendered decisions. For example, a petition was filed against government agencies in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, raising concerns about the employment of minors as laborers and the payment of wages below the statutory minimum wage levels to workers building facilities for the upcoming Asian Games in New Delhi. The Court decided that these activities were unconstitutional and had a strong objection to them. The court now allows Public Interest Litigation, also known as Social Interest Litigation, at the request of "Public spirited citizens" to enforce the legal and constitutional rights of any individual or group of individuals who are unable to petition the court for relief due to their socially or economically disadvantageous status. Public interest litigation is a part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial door steps.
In a similar vein, the Indian Supreme Court clarified in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India that the conventional approach to the legal system must be abandoned in order to "forge new tools" that will provide the basic rights of the vast majority of people genuine substance. Judge Bhagwati expressed:
'It is necessary to depart from the adversarial procedure and to evolve a new procedure which will make it possible for the poor and the weak to bring the necessary material before the Court for the purpose of securing enforcement of their fundamental rights. If we blindly follow the adversarial procedure in their case, they would never be able to enforce their fundamental rights and the result would be nothing but a mockery of the Constitution'
Among other interventions, one can refer to the Shriram Food & Fertilizer case Court through Public Interest Litigation directed the Co. Manufacturing hazardous & lethal chemical and gases posing danger to life and health of workmen & to take all necessary safety measures before re-opening the plant.
The Indian Courts have also adopted the practice of giving monetary compensation for constitutional wrongs such extrajudicial executions by state agents, wrongful imprisonment, and torture in custody through the use of PILs.
Renowned environmentalist M.C. Mehta has taken actions that have resulted in many of the major judgments made in the field of environmental preservation. His relentless advocacy in this domain has yielded numerous orders, including strict liability for the leaking of oleum gas from a New Delhi factory, directives to monitor pollution in and around the Ganges river, the evacuation of dangerous industries from Delhi's municipal limits, instructions to state agencies to monitor pollution near the Taj Mahal, and various forestry measures. A significant ruling was rendered in response to a petition bringing up the issue of widespread vehicle air pollution in Delhi. The Court was presented with substantial statistical information indicating that the use of diesel as a fuel by commercial vehicles was leading to higher levels of harmful emissions. In this case, the Supreme Court decided to step in decisively and mandated that government-run buses switch to using compressed natural gas, or CNG, which is an environmentally beneficial fuel. A short while later, an additional order was issued mandating that privately operated "auto-rickshaws," or three-wheeled vehicles that cater to local transportation requirements, switch to CNG. At the time, this decision was criticized as an unwarranted intrusion into the functions of the pollution control authorities, but it has now come to be widely acknowledged that it is only because of this judicial intervention that air pollution in Delhi has been checked to a substantial extent.
Factors contributed in growth of PIL in India:
Among many other the major factors which contributed in growth of PIL in India are:
- India, in contrast to Britain, has a codified constitution that establishes a framework for governing interactions between the state and its citizens as well as between citizens themselves through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).
- India has some of the most progressive social legislation relating to bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling, environmental protection, etc which are rarely found anywhere in the world.. This has made it easier for the courts to drag up the executive when it is not performing its duties in ensuring the rights of the poor as per the law of the land.
- The remedial nature of PIL departs from traditional locus standi rules. Thus a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court and genuine infraction of statutory provisions. The judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto action based on newspaper articles or letters received.
- It is indirectly incorporated the principles enshrined in Part IV into Part III of the Indian Constitution thereby making them judicially enforceable. For instance, the "right to life" in Article 21 has been expanded to include right to free legal aid, right to live with dignity, right to education, right to work, freedom from torture, bar fetters and handcuffing in prisons, etc.
- Perceptive judges have persistently innovated on the side of the poor. Like, in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the apex court put the burden of proof on the respondent stating it would treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the employer. Similarly in the Asiad Workers judgment case, Justice Bhagwati held that anyone getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through the labor commissioner and lower courts.
- In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary evidence, either because it is capacious or because the parties are weak socially or economically, courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the bench.
CONCLUSION:
PIL in India has yielded incredible outcomes that were unimaginable thirty years ago. Its biggest contribution has been to make governments more accountable for protecting the human rights of the poor. Judges by themselves are unable to effectively combat governmental lawlessness, but they can contribute to the development of a culture in which political authority grows more mindful of human rights.
But, public interest litigants, all over the country, have not taken very humanely to such court decisions. They do fear that this will sound the death-knell of the people- friendly concept of PIL. However, bona fide litigants of India have nothing to fear. Only those activists who prefer to file frivolous complaints will have to pay compensation to the opposite parties. It is actually a welcome move because no one in the country can deny that even PIL activists should be responsible and accountable. It is also notable here that even the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 has been amended to provide compensation to opposite parties in cases of frivolous complaints made by consumers. In any way, it now does require a complete rethink and restructuring. It is however, obvious that overuse and abuse of PIL can only make it stale and ineffective. Since it is an extraordinary remedy available at a cheaper cost to all citizens of the country, it ought not to be used by all litigants as a substitute for ordinary ones or as a means to file frivolous complaints.
The power of the Court to entertain any circumstance that may hinder societal growth, or may cause hardship to a class of individuals is not unconstrained. It is carefully regulated with tight reins, and cases of public interest are taken up only after scrupulous scrutiny.
Similarly there may be cases where the PIL may affect the right of persons not before the court, and therefore in shaping the relief the court must invariably take into account its impact on those interests and the court must exercise greatest caution and adopt procedure ensuring sufficient notice to all interests likely to be affected.
At present, the court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. But, it is not every letter, which may be treated as a writ petition by the court. The court would be justified in treating the letter as a writ petition only in the following cases:
- It is only where the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person or
- A public spirited individual or
- A social action group for the enforcement of the constitutional or the legal rights of a person in custody or of a class or group of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach the court for redress.
Even though it is very much essential to curb the misuse and abuse of PIL, any move by the government to regulate the PIL results in widespread protests from those who are not aware of its abuse and equate any form of regulation with erosion of their fundamental rights. Under these circumstances the Supreme Court of India is required to step in by incorporating safe guards provided by the civil procedure code in matters of stay orders /injunctions in the arena of PIL.
However shedding all the doubts and abuses against misuse of PIL, it must be accepted that is working as an important instrument of social change. It is working for the welfare of every section of society. It is the sword of every one used only for taking the justice. The innovation of this legitimate instrument proved beneficial for the developing country like India. PIL has been used as a strategy to combat the atrocities prevailing in society. It is an institutional initiative towards the welfare of the needy class of the society.