Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Context

Recently, Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court observed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL), originally designed to bring social justice to the common man, is increasingly being misused. The judge noted that it has often metamorphosed into “private interest litigation,” “publicity interest litigation,” and even “paisa (money) interest litigation”. These remarks were made during the hearing of review petitions in the Sabarimala case, where the court questioned the locus standi of certain petitioners and the potential for “meddlers” to exploit the judicial process.

Core Concept: What is PIL?

• Public Interest Litigation is a legal mechanism where a person or a group can file a petition in court for the protection of “Public Interest”. It is an essential tool for the Indian judiciary to ensure social justice post-Emergency.
• The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai.

1. Departure from ‘Locus Standi’

• Traditional Rule: Traditionally, only the person whose rights are violated can move the court (Locus Standi).
• PIL Exception: Under PIL, any public-spirited citizen or organization can approach the court for the enforcement of rights on behalf of a person or class of persons who, by reason of poverty or disability, cannot approach the court themselves.
• Suo Motu Cognizance: The court can also take up cases on its own (suo motu) based on news reports or letters.

2. Constitutional Basis

• Judicial Mechanism: PIL is not defined in any statute but is a judge-made law initiated by the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226).

3. Evolution and Key Figures

• The concept was pioneered in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
• First Case: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) is often regarded as the first PIL, focusing on the rights of undertrial prisoners.

4. Key Exceptions and Constraints

• No Individual Matters: PILs are meant for public issues, not personal disputes.
• Good Faith Requirement: The case must be filed for genuine public causes, not for personal publicity or political gain.
• Not a Private Tool: Misuse can lead to dismissal of the case

5. Applicability

• Can be filed for environmental pollution, bonded labor, neglect of children, atrocities against women, food adulteration, and public health.

6. Types of issues not covered by public interest litigation

There are a few types of issues for which a PIL cannot be filed in the court, as they don’t involve public interest. They are personal matters related only to the parties to the suit. They are as follows:

• Tenancy matters between a landlord and a tenant.
• Matters related to admissions in educational institutions between the student and the institution.
• Issues related to providing maintenance to the wife and children between the husband and the wife;
• Plea filed for an early hearing of their case as it involves personal gain only.
• Matters related to pension and gratuity between the aggrieved person and the concerned authority.

7. Issues and Challenges

While PIL was intended to be a “shield” for the vulnerable, it is now often criticized for becoming a “sword” used by individuals for personal or political gains.

Issue	Description
Frivolous Litigation	Petitions filed without adequate research or for purely personal motives.
Judicial Overreach	Critics argue that PILs sometimes lead the judiciary to perform executive or legislative functions.
Backlog of Cases	The influx of “paisa interest” or “publicity interest” cases adds to the already high pendency in the Indian legal system.

With reference to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, consider the following statements:
1. PIL allows any public-spirited individual to approach the court on behalf of others. 
2. PIL can only be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32. 
3. Courts can take suo motu cognizance of matters under PIL. 
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1 and 3 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer:B
•  Statement 1 is correct: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a departure from the traditional rule of locus standi. It allows any public-spirited citizen or organization to approach the court for the enforcement of rights on behalf of persons who, due to poverty or disability, cannot approach the court themselves.
•  Statement 2 is incorrect: While PILs can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32, they can also be filed in High Courts under Article 226. The statement "only be filed in the Supreme Court" is therefore factually wrong.
•  Statement 3 is correct: The judiciary possesses the power to take suo motu cognizance (action on its own motion) of matters based on news reports, letters, or telegrams, treating them as PILs.