The emergence of Public Interest Litigation has symbolically articulated the right of citizens to their elective “pathway to justice” which by principle is a fundamental and essential right in any welfare-oriented state that guarantees social rights. This form of welfare-oriented litigation plays a pivotal role in the civil justice system, as it can achieve those objectives that can’t under normal circumstances be achieved under general private litigation. It offers a well-defined ladder towards justice and provides an avenue to uphold diffused or collective rights. With respect to Indian legal history, the first official record of a lawsuit being filed in public interest was the 1979 case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar. This case witnessed multiple prisoners of the Bihar Jail presenting a petition in front the Supreme Court of India to fast-track the hearing of their pending suits in court. The success of this petition resulted in 40,000 prisoners whose cases were pending in courts, to be released from jail. Various similar petitions were deliberated upon in the coming years, but it was in the case of SP Gupta vs The Union of India that the Supreme Court defined the term “public interest litigation” in the Indian context.
However, before progressing further it is necessary to understand what the phrase Public Interest Litigation or a “PIL” means in itself, and in what capacity is it relevant to the Indian legal context. In simple words, it refers to litigation filled in both trial and appellate courts for the protection and upholding of public interest. It acts as a petition that an individual, group of individuals or non-governmental organisations can file in a court of law to seek justice in an issue that has a larger public interest. It provides a window of opportunity to common citizens to gain direct access to the judiciary to obtain legal redressal for a greater cause.
The next few questions that need to be addressed are those regarding the procedures surrounding a public interest litigation. A very basic question in this regard is that – who can file a PIL? In the Indian legal system, only Indian citizens and nationals have the authority to file a PIL. The primary condition for filing, however, is that it should not be filed with private interest, but in a larger public interest. If the issue raised is highly pertinent, Courts in the country can even appoint special advocates to take up the cases filed. An important factor that a petitioner of a PIL must keep in mind is who the defending party of their PIL is going to be, and it is this factor that leads on to another pertinent question. In the context of the defending party, as discussed, a question that commonly arises is – should the defence of a PIL be aware of the case prior to filing in court? The answer, surprisingly, is in a way a yes.
This is so because if the defending party is made aware of the issue, it gives them a chance to take remedial steps beforehand itself so that no courts need to get involved. For instance, if a case demands a change in government policy or the introduction of a new policy from a particular government department, it is advisable to raise the issue with the relevant authority first to give them a chance to sort out the issue by themselves. However, if this step fails and no remedial action is provided, then the petition should be taken to court.
Another pertinent question is – where can PILs be registered or filed? Under Article 32 of the Constitution, any citizen can file a PIL in the Supreme Court directly, while under Article 226, a PIL can be filed in a High Court and in a Magistrate Court under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the relevant court must be satisfied that the petition the basic criteria to qualify as PIL, such as its cause being for public benefit. It is in this context it becomes necessary to draw a line between what qualifies a Writ Petition and PIL. In simplest terms, a writ petition is filed by individuals or institutions for their private benefit, and not for public interest, while a PIL as already discussed is the vice versa of the same. The filing of the case in itself is a very economical fifty rupees. However, affixing advocates to represent the case might lead to further expenses.
A crucial factor to be considered while filing a PIL is considering what category of cases can be accepted as a PIL and what can’t. As per Supreme Court Guidelines, landlord-tenant disputes, pensions and gratuity disputes, admission into medical or educational institutions and petitions to prepone hearing dates pending in High Courts or subordinate courts, are not considered to be valid for filing a PIL.
With respect to the last condition, it might come across as ironic that the premises of the case of the Bihari Prisoners which founded the PIL culture in India, has not been included. Hence, it can be interpreted that there has been an abuse of the right which caused the Supreme Court to outlaw it. In fact, 2010 was a year which witnessed a rigorous revision of PIL laws in India by the Supreme Court to ensure no frivolous petitions which have no standing as public issues get acted upon in courts. Having discussed all the factors to be considered while filing a Public Interest Litigation Petition, the final question that needs consideration is the redressal period or in how long will the filed case be closed.
The answer to this seemingly simple question has a complex manifold answer. One immediate factor that affects the duration of closure of a PIL is the nature of the case itself. If the PIL is regarding matters of utmost public importance such lives of individuals, humanitarian needs, human rights violations or national interest matters, courts will be more inclined to take up the case, conduct hearings and dispose of the issue as soon as possible.
However, it is, unfortunately, a fact that due to the piling up of a high number of petitions, the hearing and closure of cases is a time-consuming process. The courts in most cases use their own discretion in deciding hearing dates or issuing orders to external parties. It is only after the hearing of both parties’ counsels is the case considered for closure.
In conclusion, it can be said with fairly reasonable certainty that the introduction of Public Interest Litigations has revolutionised the judicial system in India, by making it more public, inclusive and just. However, it is admissible that the PIL system isn’t the panacea to solve public issues but is definitely a step in the right direction. In spite of its limitations due to slow processing and misuse, PILs have evolved to a great extent over the years and has been used in monumental cases in India’s legal history such as M.C Mehta v. Union of India and the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan cases. It is hence a pinnacle of legal inclusiveness in our country and when pursued with the right intention and right spirit can be used to bring about justice in a wide array of social, cultural, political and economic avenues.
References
1. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar
2. PIL AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION” AND “PRIVATE INTEREST LITIGATION” by
Amar Bharat
3. Citizen Matters: A guide to filing a Public Interest Litigation – Activism Through Law by Akshatha M.
Contributed by
Rayan Bhattacharya
Student at Durham University, UK
