A Double-Edged Sword

One of the key concepts known to have accelerated judicial activism in India is public interest litigation (PIL). PIL is litigation undertaken to secure public interest. Over the years, while courts have duly entertained genuine PILs, over the last few decades, they have also rightly pointed out the misuse of the same. At times, people are casually advised to file PILs—sometimes for ulterior motives, indirect gains, or even as a publicity stunt. One must carefully scrutinise the legal position rather than wasting time, as this could, in certain genuine cases, result in delays in approaching the correct legal remedy.

In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors., 2001, the Supreme Court observed that public interest litigation is tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation, with a tendency to be counterproductive. The Court stated that PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect the basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged and was a procedure that allowed a public-spirited person to file a petition on behalf of those who, due to poverty, helplessness, or economic and social disabilities, could not approach the Court for relief. In recent times, however, there have been increasing instances of PIL abuse. The Court, therefore, emphasised the need to re-establish the parameters within which PILs can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the Court.

In Esteem Properties P. Ltd. vs. Chetan Kamble, 2022, the Supreme Court observed that although the jurisprudence in this regard has matured, many claims filed in the courts remain immature. The judgment noted that frivolous petitions are being filed, burdening the dockets of both the Apex Court and the High Courts. The dictum said that the noble intentions behind expanding the Court’s jurisdiction to accommodate socially relevant issues, in recent decades, have been critically analysed. In the Court's view, PIL litigation has had a beneficial effect on the Indian jurisprudence and has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general.

PIL relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi. The Apex Court, in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr., 1981, while considering the question of law relating to locus standi, stated that the issue is of immense importance in a country like India, where access to justice is restricted by social and economic constraints. It emphasised the necessity of democratising judicial remedies, removing technical barriers to justice, and promoting public interest litigation so that the large masses of deprived and exploited people may realise and enjoy the socio-economic rights granted to them. The Court held that it had to liberalise the rule of standing to provide judicial redress for public injury arising from the breach of public duty or other violations of the Constitution or the law. If public duties are to be enforced and social, collective, and diffused rights and interests are to be protected, the judiciary must utilise the initiative and zeal of public-minded persons and organisations by allowing them to move the Court and act in the interest of the public, even if they are not directly injured in their own rights. However, the Court duly cautioned that individuals moving the Court for judicial redress in such cases must act bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice. If one acts for personal gain, private profit, political motivation, or other oblique considerations, the Court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such persons and must reject the application at the threshold.

In Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, 2014, the Apex Court observed that the concept of Public Interest Litigation evolved to bring justice within the reach of those handicapped by ignorance, indigence, illiteracy, and other disadvantages. However, under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, the Court noted that it was encountering several cases where PIL was being exploited for the benefit of certain individuals.

PIL is also known as social action litigation. The 1979 case concerning prisoners detained in Bihar jail is particularly well known. PIL has also played an instrumental role in environmental issues. In Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar vs. Union of India & Others, 1993, the Apex Court considered a public interest action for the enforcement of certain statutory notifications promulgated under the Wildlife Protection Act, Environmental Protection Act, and Forest Conservation Laws in areas declared as a Reserved Forest in Alwar District, Rajasthan. The Court held that the petitioners were acting in aid of a cause high on the national agenda and emphasised that concern for the environment, ecology, and wildlife should be shared by the government.

Through various judicial dictums and guidelines, the issues on which PIL may be maintainable have been well explained. One should closely examine the parameters before opting for such petitions to avoid wasting both precious judicial time and one's own time.

The writer is a practising Advocate in Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi. Views expressed are personal