One of the earliest public interest litigation was filed by G. Vasantha Pai who filed a case in the Madras High Court against the then sitting Chief Justice of the Madras High court S. Ramachandra Iyer[1] after it was found the judge had forged his date of birth to avoid compulsory retirement at the age of 60 and his younger brother sent invitations to celebrate his 60th birthday and Pai found evidence after photographing his original birth register which showed his real age which was 64.
[3][4] In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition in regards to the condition of the prisoners detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in court.
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.
The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) is suited to the principles enshrined in Article 39A[a] of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law.
[6] The Supreme Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi; it requested the enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who lived in inhuman and degrading conditions.
In Citizens for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486 : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74 : 1995 (3) SCC 743 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court alleging human rights violations of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) detainees; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
For example, a petition drafted by Amar Singh was vague, not in conformance with the rules of procedure, and contained inconsistencies; the court did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy).
A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans.
The high court dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos substitutes.
The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in banning of [sic] the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos.
A definite attempt was made by it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute for asbestos.
“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies', a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment.
Public interest litigation gives a wider description to the right to equality, life and personality, which is guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India.
[9] The PIL concept deviates from the traditional adversarial justice system that is followed in the common law countries (past colonies of the UK), and this construct is in fact inquisitorial in nature which permits the judges to directly participate in the investigation of the case.
[9] A controversial study by social scientist Hans Dembowski concluded that PILs had been successful in making official authorities accountable to NGOs.
While Dembowski also found some effect at the grassroots level, PIL cases dealing with major environmental grievances in the Kolkata urban agglomeration did not tackle underlying problems (such as inadequate town planning).
[14] A bench consisting of Justices G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly pointed out that laws enacted for achieving the goals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution were inadequate; the benefits of welfare measures embodied in the legislation had not reached millions of poor people, and efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor did not yield the desired results.
Singhvi wrote, in a case concerning sewage workers: “The most unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of the state i.e., the judiciary issues directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life, and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicap of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, and directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or overreach”.
[15] The bench clarified that it was necessary to erase the impression on some that the superior courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for the poor who could not seek protection of their rights, exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction.
Such cases may be filed for public interest when victims lack the capability to commence litigation or their freedom to petition the court has been blocked.
The Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore (CLPR) hosts a Public Interest Lawyering Hub,[16] where resources on PIL are available.