What is PIL?
- Origin: The concept was borrowed from American Jurisprudence, designed to represent unrepresented groups like the poor, racial minorities, and environmentalists.
- Legal Status: PIL is not defined in any statute or act. It is a product of Judicial Activism by the courts to protect the “Public Interest”.
- Core Philosophy: It relaxes the rule of Locus Standi, allowing any public-spirited citizen to approach the court on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves due to poverty or disability.
2. Evolution in India:-
- The Pioneer: The seeds were sown by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 (Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai).
- First Reported Case: Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) focused on undertrial prisoners, establishing the Right to Speedy Justice as a fundamental right.
- The Expansion: Justice P.N. Bhagwati (in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India) ruled that any bonafide citizen can invoke writ jurisdiction for the redressal of public injury, making PIL a potent weapon.
3. Constitutional Provisions: Where can it be filed?
- Supreme Court: Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- High Court: Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Magistrate: Under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
- Respondents: It is generally filed against the State (Central/State Govt, Municipal Authorities) as defined under Article 12, and not solely against private parties.
4. Landmark Judgements: Judicial Innovations
- Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan: Recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21; laid down guidelines for workplace safety.
- M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: Established that a petitioner need not be a riparian owner to file a case against river pollution, asserting the right of the public to clean water.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha: The Supreme Court shifted the burden of proof to the employer to prove that forced labor was not bonded labor.
5. Challenges: The Flip Side
- Judicial Overreach: Excessive interference in policy matters may violate the principle of Separation of Powers.
- Frivolous Litigation: Misuse for political or personal gain creates a backlog, diverting attention from genuine human rights issues.
- Competing Rights: Decisions (e.g., closing polluting industries) may conflict with the livelihood rights of workers.
Q. With respect to the scope and jurisdiction of PILs, consider the following statements:
1. A PIL can be filed against a private entity alone without making the State a party to the case.
2. In cases of bonded labor, the Supreme Court has placed the burden of proof on the respondent to prove that forced labor is not bonded labor.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: A PIL can be filed against the Central/State Government or Municipal Authorities ("State" under Article 12), but not solely against a private party.
Statement 2 is correct: In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Supreme Court stated it would treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded labor unless proven otherwise by the employer (burden of proof on the respondent).
