The role of PIL in promoting social justice

Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has grown as a powerful instrument in India’s legal system, allowing judges to address concerns of social justice and public welfare. PIL, which began in the late 1970s, symbolizes a radical departure from traditional legal processes by allowing people and groups to seek judicial intervention on behalf of neglected and disadvantaged populations. This novel legal process has democratized access to justice, allowing ordinary persons to challenge government inactivity or wrongdoing that violates constitutional rights and the public interest. By broadening the locus standi and adopting a more flexible approach to procedural requirements, PIL has permitted historic decisions that have profoundly improved human rights, environmental preservation, and socioeconomic justice.

This article delves into the evolution, significance, and impact of public interest litigation in India, illustrating how it has become an indispensable instrument for promoting social justice and ensuring the rule of law in a complex and diverse society.

Traditional View on Locus Standi

Locus standi, or the right to bring an action before the court, is a fundamental concept in legal systems worldwide. In the traditional Indian legal framework, locus standi was narrowly construed, limiting the right to sue to individuals who could demonstrate a direct and personal legal interest in the litigation’s outcome. This restrictive interpretation aimed to ensure that courts were not burdened with frivolous or hypothetical disputes, thereby preserving judicial resources for genuine grievances.

Historically, Indian courts adhered to this stringent requirement, insisting that the petitioner must show a direct injury or an invasion of a legally protected interest. This was evident in cases like Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar[1], where the Supreme Court of India stated that only a person “aggrieved” by an action could seek judicial redress. The court defined an aggrieved person as someone who has suffered a legal wrong or whose legal right or interest has been adversely affected by the challenged act.

This narrow view of locus standi ensured that only those with a tangible stake in the matter could approach the courts, thereby maintaining a clear separation between the interests of the public and private individuals. It also aimed to prevent the judiciary from becoming a forum for political or social activism by parties with no direct involvement in the case.

The traditional Indian approach to locus standi contrasts sharply with the doctrines followed in other constitutional systems, such as those of the United States and the United Kingdom.

United States

In the United States, the concept of standing is derived from Article III of the Constitution, which confines federal courts’ jurisdiction to actual ‘cases’ and ‘controversies’. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed a rigorous three-part test for standing[2] –

1. Injury in Fact – The plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.
2. Causation – There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.
3. Redressability – It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable court decision.

This approach, while stringent, allows for class actions and has mechanisms to accommodate broader public interest concerns, particularly in cases involving significant public issues.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the requirement of locus standi is governed by the principle of ‘sufficient interest’ under judicial review. According to the Senior Courts Act 1981, an applicant must show that they have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. This standard is more flexible than the traditional Indian view, allowing not just individuals but also organizations and public interest groups to challenge public decisions. The UK courts have shown a willingness to grant standing in cases where the matter concerns significant public interest, thereby ensuring greater accountability of public authorities.

Liberal view on Locus Standi

The notion of locus standi has undergone considerable changes in the Indian legal system, notably with the introduction of Public Interest Litigation. This change from a conventional to a more liberal conception of locus standi has helped to democratize access to justice while also strengthening the judiciary’s role in promoting social fairness and safeguarding basic rights.

The liberal stance on locus standi gained prominence in the late 1970s and 1980s, led by the Supreme Court of India. This strategy was distinguished by a loosening of the restrictive standards that previously limited access to the courts, allowing people and groups to submit petitions on behalf of those who could not do so themselves.

In S.P Gupta’s case[3], also known as the Judge’s Transfer Case, this landmark judgment marked a significant shift toward a liberal interpretation of locus standi. The Supreme Court held that any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of a public wrong or for enforcement of a public duty. This decision laid the foundation for the broadening of standing in PIL cases.

Key Features of the Liberal View

1. Expansion of Standing            The liberal view broadens the scope of who can approach the court, permitting not only those directly affected by a legal wrong but also those acting in the public interest to file petitions. This has enabled activists, non – governmental organizations (NGOs), and concerned citizens to seek judicial redress for issues affecting large segments of the population, particularly marginalized and disadvantaged groups.

2. Focus on Public Interest      Under the liberal view, the focus shifts from the personal interest of the petitioner to the larger public interest. This has facilitated the judiciary’s intervention in a wide range of social issues, including environmental protection, human rights, and governance.

3. Judicial Activism                      The liberal interpretation of locus standi is closely associated with judicial activism, where courts proactively address issues of public concern even in the absence of traditional litigants. This has been a hallmark of the Indian Supreme Court’s approach, especially in landmark cases involving PIL.

Social Impact of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Public Interest Litigation in India has had a significant influence on the country’s social justice system. As discussed above also, PIL parted way from the traditional concept of locus standi and allowed for a more elaborative view which helped the people or organizations to seek legal remedy on behalf of others who may be unable to do so themselves, democratizing access to justice. PIL has fostered substantial socio-legal developments in a variety of fields, including environmental protection, human rights, education, and women’s rights which are discussed below with relevant case laws –

Environmental Protection 

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[4] – M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer, started one of the most major environmental PILs. The lawsuit focused on the significant pollution levels in the Ganges River. The Supreme Court’s involvement resulted in the development of the Ganga Action Plan, which aims to decrease pollution and restore the river’s health. This case established a precedent for environmental law in India and highlighted the judiciary’s responsibility to protect natural resources.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[5] – In this instance, the Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of sustainable development. The Court ordered the closure of tanneries and other polluting enterprises in Tamil Nadu for untreated effluent discharge into agricultural fields, rivers, and open areas, resulting in significant environmental degradation. The decision stressed the “polluter pays” premise and the necessity for strict environmental rules.

Human Rights and Dignity

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[6] – This groundbreaking PIL, filed by a non-governmental organization, focuses on the harsh working conditions of bonded labor. The Supreme Court’s verdict resulted in the identification, release, and rehabilitation of thousands of bonded workers throughout India. The Court ordered the implementation of assistance programs and emphasized the state’s responsibility to safeguard disadvantaged workers.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[7] – The Vishaka case arose from a PIL filed by women’s rights organizations after the savage gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan. The Supreme Court published instructions to combat workplace sexual harassment, viewing it as a breach of basic rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. These principles were the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013.

Impact on Educational Rights

• Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh[8] – In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to education is inherent in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This PIL led to the creation of a framework for private educational institutions, guaranteeing that they charged fair fees and offered a specified amount of free education to needy children. This lawsuit made a crucial contribution to the final passage of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, of 2009.
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka[9] – In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that access to education at all levels is a basic right. The decision resulted from a PIL challenging medical institutions’ capitation fee structure, which rendered education unavailable to the economically disadvantaged. The Court’s judgment underlined that the state must guarantee equal access to education for all people.

Women’s Rights

• Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India[10] – This PIL addressed the absence of regulations in the adoption process, which often resulted in child abuse and trafficking. The Supreme Court established criteria for inter-country adoptions that prioritize the child’s well-being and safeguard them from abuse and exploitation. This case emphasized the judiciary’s proactive role in protecting children’s and women’s rights since many adoptive parents are single women.
• C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil[11] – In this PIL, the Supreme Court upheld the equal rights of women in property matters, challenging the traditional Hindu law that often discriminated against women. The Court ruled that women have equal inheritance rights as men, ensuring gender equality and empowerment. This case has been instrumental in transforming societal attitudes towards women’s rights to property and inheritance.

Urban and Rural Development

• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[12] – Known as the “Pavement Dwellers’ Case,” this PIL addressed the issue of forced eviction of slum dwellers in Mumbai. The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment protected the rights of pavement dwellers and slum residents, mandating that adequate notice and alternative accommodation be provided before any eviction.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh[13] – This PIL, also known as the Dehradun Quarrying Case, addressed the environmental degradation caused by illegal limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills. The Supreme Court ordered the closure of many quarries, recognizing the adverse impact on the environment and the local population. The case underscored the necessity of balancing developmental activities with environmental conservation and the rights of rural communities.

Healthcare and Sanitation

• Parmanand Katara v. Union of India[14] – In this PIL, the Supreme Court ruled that every citizen has the right to emergency medical care and that no patient should be denied treatment due to procedural delays. The case arose from the death of a road accident victim who was denied timely medical treatment. The Court’s directive ensured that hospitals prioritize saving lives over administrative formalities, reinforcing the right to health as a fundamental aspect of the right to life.
• Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand[15] – In this case, the Supreme Court directed the Ratlam Municipal Council to provide adequate sanitation facilities to prevent health hazards caused by open drains and filth in a residential area. The judgment emphasized that municipal authorities have a duty to ensure basic public health and sanitation, significantly impacting urban governance and public health policies.

Child Rights

• Sheela Barse v. Union of India[16] – This PIL, filed by journalist Sheela Barse, focused on the inhumane conditions of children in juvenile homes and police lock-ups. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to protect the rights of children in custody, ensuring that they receive proper care, legal aid, and humane treatment. The case highlighted the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of children in institutional care.
• Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India[17] – This PIL addressed the adoption process, particularly concerning inter-country adoptions. The Supreme Court established guidelines to ensure that adoptions are conducted in the best interest of the child, protecting them from trafficking and exploitation. This judgment played a crucial role in reforming adoption laws and safeguarding children’s rights.

Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation has unquestionably altered the face of Indian jurisprudence, functioning as a beacon of hope for millions who lack the resources to pursue justice via traditional legal procedures. PIL has tackled structural injustices, bridged socioeconomic inequities, and safeguarded basic rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution via groundbreaking decisions and aggressive court interventions. However, the effectiveness of PIL is equally dependent on its sensible use and the integrity of the judge. As we face the difficulties of a fast-changing society, it is critical to maintain the integrity of PIL as a weapon for true public good, ensuring that it remains a strong mechanism for furthering social justice. By continually fostering a legal environment that prioritizes collective welfare over individual interests, India can uphold the ideals of equality, fairness, and justice that lie at the heart of its democratic ethos.

Reference(s):

[1] (1976) 1 SCC 671.

[2] Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992).

[3] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.

[4] AIR 1988 SC 1115.

[5] AIR 1996 SC 2715.

[6] AIR 1984 SC 802.

[7] (1997) 6 SCC 241.

[8] AIR 1993 SC 217.

[9] AIR 1992 SC 1858.

[10] AIR 1984 SC 469.

[11] AIR 1996 SC 1697.

[12] AIR 1986 SC 180.

[13] AIR 1985 SC 652.

[14] AIR 1989 SC 2039.

[15] AIR 1980 SC 1622.

[16] AIR 1986 SC 1773.

[17] AIR 1984 SC 469.