§ 3729 et seq., which allows a private individual, or "whistleblower" (or relator), with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal government to bring suit on its behalf.
Traditionally, Indian courts applied the English doctrine of locus standi, permitting litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant.
Litigation brought in this manner by private citizens led to the development in Indian tort law of absolute liability for enterprises engaging in hazardous activities that subsequently caused harm to any individual or community or to their property under the rule in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India.
The petition was signed by prisoners of the Bihar jail and the case was filed in the Supreme Court of India before the bench headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati.
In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only.
[citation needed] Another example of the "private attorney general" provisions is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
RICO allows average citizens (private attorneys general) to sue organisations that commit mail and wire fraud as part of their criminal enterprise.
President Clinton sought to find common ground between liberals who support stronger enforcement of civil rights and consumer protection law and conservatives sceptical of expensive government regulation, stating in his second State of the Union Address "That it was time for the American People to be given more power while the Federal Government down sizes"[12][verification needed] One approach to compromise that rose to prominence was providing for private citizens to act as "private attorneys general" for the enforcement of civil rights law,[1] thereby delegating both the task and the financial burden of regulation to civil society.
For instance, in the case "Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v Seif", the federal government filed an amicus brief arguing that the regulations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be enforced by private attorneys general[13] Correspondingly, the Supreme Court has determined that Congress intended several civil rights statutes to be enforceable by private parties[14] The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be "adequate to attract competent counsel" to represent client with civil rights grievances.
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.
[a] Similarly, public interest litigation in India has been criticised for undermining parliamentary sovereignty and enabling the court system to exert inordinate power over the legislative and executive branches of government.
"[18] In law and economics literature, there is consequently a debate as to whether liability and regulation are substitutes or complements and thus whether the enforcement of predictable regulation known to manufacturers in advance can adequately assure consumer safety while providing greater legal certainty for manufacturers than strict liability[19][20][21][22] Another criticism of private attorney general suits in common law jurisdictions is that the availability of discovery enables private attorneys general to impose costs on defendants in order to force settlements in unmeritorious cases to avoid the cost of discovery.