• Many petitioners have been filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in higher courts on various issues.  

• However, last year in October, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the opening of certain rooms of the Taj Mahal and called it a ‘publicity interest litigation’.

• The Public Interest Litigation is an extremely important jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

• The courts in a number of cases have given important directions and passed orders which have brought positive changes in the country.

• However, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity reach the court by wearing the mask of Public Interest Litigation by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions. 

• Public Interest Litigation, which occupies an important field in the administration of law, should not be “publicity interest litigation” or “private interest litigation” or “politics interest litigation”.

• On account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants.

What is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

• Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest in which the public or a class of the community has pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

• It is a collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of public authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.

• The PIL is the product of realisation of the constitutional obligation of the court.

• PIL is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature tune of our Constitution. 

• It provides the government and its officers an occasion to examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community.

Evolution of PIL

• The Indian courts may have taken some inspiration from the group or class interest litigation of the United States of America and other countries but the shape of the Public Interest Litigation as we see now is predominantly indigenously developed jurisprudence.

• The decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1970s loosened the strict locus standi requirements to permit filing of petitions on behalf of marginalised and deprived sections of the society by public spirited individuals, institutions and/or bodies. 

• The courts expanded the meaning of right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The rule of locus standi was diluted and the traditional meaning of ‘aggrieved person’ was broadened to provide access to justice to a very large section of the society which was otherwise not getting any benefit from the judicial system. 

• The higher courts exercised wide powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. 

• The sort of remedies sought from the courts in the Public Interest Litigation goes beyond award of remedies to the affected individuals and groups. In suitable cases, the courts have also given guidelines and directions. 

• The courts have monitored implementation of legislation and even formulated guidelines in absence of legislation. If the cases of the decades of 70s and 80s are analysed, most of the Public Interest Litigation cases which were entertained by the courts are pertaining to enforcement of fundamental rights of marginalised and deprived sections of the society.

• The courts, in a number of cases, have given important directions and passed orders which have brought positive changes in the country. The courts’ directions have immensely benefited marginalised sections of the society in a number of cases. 

• It has also helped in protection and preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, etc. 

• The courts’ directions to some extent have helped in maintaining probity and transparency in public life.

Impact of PIL

• Public Interest Litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people.

• It is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the masses.

• The Indian courts by its judicial craftsmanship, creativity and urge to provide access to justice to the deprived, discriminated and otherwise vulnerable sections of society have touched almost every aspect of human life while dealing with cases filed in the label of the Public Interest Litigation. 

• The credibility of the superior courts of India has been tremendously enhanced because of some vital and important directions given by the courts. The courts’ contribution in helping the poorer sections of the society by giving new definition to life and liberty and to protect ecology, environment and forests are extremely significant.

• The courts made a serious endeavour to protect and preserve ecology, environment, forests, hills, rivers, marine life, wildlife, etc and gave directions in a large number of cases in larger public interest. 

• The courts have passed a number of orders or directions to unearth corruption and maintain probity and morality in the governance of the State. The probity in governance is important for an efficient system of administration and for the development of the country and an important requirement for ensuring probity in governance is the absence of corruption.

Abuse of Public Interest Litigation

• It has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives.

• The Supreme Court has devised a number of strategies to ensure that Public Interest Litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. 

• Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals “acting bonafide”.

• Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of “exemplary costs” as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious Public Interest Litigations. 

• Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in entertaining the Public Interest Litigations. 

The Supreme Court has observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about:

a) The credentials of the applicant.

b) The prima facie correctness or nature of information given by the petitioner.

c) The information being not vague and indefinite.

• The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. 

It has also added that the Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests.

i) Nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others.

ii) Avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.

• To avoid entertaining frivolous and vexatious petitions under the guise of PIL, the Court has excluded two groups of persons from obtaining standing in PIL petitions. First, the Supreme Court has rejected awarding standing to “meddlesome interlopers”. Second, the Court has denied standing to interveners bringing Public Interest Litigation for personal gain.

• The Supreme Court has even passed harsher orders. In one case (Charan Lal Sahu & Others vs Giani Zail Singh & Another, 1983), the Court concluded that the petition was careless, meaningless, clumsy and against public interest. Therefore, the Court ordered the Registry to initiate prosecution proceedings against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act. Additionally, the court forbade the Registry from entertaining any future PIL petitions filed by the petitioner, who was an advocate in this case.

• The SC has expressed its anguish on misuse of the forum of the court under the garb of Public Interest Litigation and observed that it is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking.

• The jurisprudence developed by the Indian judiciary regarding the imposition of exemplary costs upon frivolous and vexatious PIL petitions is consistent with jurisprudence developed in other countries. US Federal Courts and Canadian Courts have also imposed monetary penalties upon public interest claims regarded as frivolous. The courts also imposed non-monetary penalties upon advocates for filing frivolous claims.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store