INTRODUCTION
There is no definition for PIL in any Indian legislation. Courts have, nevertheless, defined and construed PIL. In the case of Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary (AIR 1993 SC 892), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that, lexically, a “PIL” is a legal action filed in a court of law to enforce a public or general interest where the public, or a specific class of the public, has an interest, including a financial interest that impacts their legal rights or liabilities.
PILs are regarded as the most successful and widely utilized legal tool for protecting the environment because of their many benefits, which include quick outcomes, cheap court costs, lax procedural rules, and the extensive range of investigative methods courts, such as special committees, can employ.
Any person or organization may bring a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as PIL) on behalf of a marginalized or oppressed group in society that is unable to enforce its own rights, or on its own behalf, to defend or enforce a right due to it by the government.
LOCUS STANDI OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
In the case of PILs, the idea of “Locus Standi” has been loosened to allow the Honorable Court to consider complaints brought on behalf of those who are underprivileged, impoverished, uneducated, or crippled and are unable to access the courts on their own.
Nonetheless, the locus standi to file a PIL will only belong to an individual acting in good faith and with a significant interest in the action. The Hon’ble Court will not hear from anybody who approaches it with the intention of obtaining personal, business, political, or any other indirect benefit.
CONCEPT OF RUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA
In India, the principles regarding Public Interest Litigation are as follows:
Relaxed Rules on Locus standi: This allows anybody to file a PIL on behalf of those who are underprivileged and unable to access the legal system on their own. In PIL cases, the usual rule of locus standi has been loosened in order to defend and preserve the rights and interests of these marginalized individuals.
Relaxed Procedural Rules: As demonstrated in the instance of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of Uttar Pradesh, courts have recognized even a letter or telegraph as a PIL. In PIL cases, the courts have further loosened the rules around pleadings.
Court intervention: Courts have drawn attention to the provisions for a fair and reasonable trial included in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as well as international human rights conventions. Hence, when injustice is done to several people, courts must step in.
Question of maintainability: If the court finds prima facie that there is a modification of any constitutional rights of a disadvantaged group of individuals, the Government may not be permitted to raise doubts about the PIL’s maintainability.
Principle of Res Judicata: Depending on the particulars of the case, the PIL’s type, and the case’s facts, the application of the res judicata principle or any similar principles may apply.
Commission Appointment: A court has the authority to designate a Commission or other investigative bodies under certain conditions. The Court may assign control of a public institution to the Commission in the event that it takes over.
PILs pertaining to the legality or constitutionality of a legislation or statutory rule: Generally, the High Court shouldn’t consider such a petition through a PIL.
Total Justice: As per Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India possesses the discretionary authority to issue any decree or decision that may be required to provide full and fair justice. While high courts have the authority to issue orders to carry out full justice, they do not possess the same authority as the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142.
Misuse of PILs: Courts take great care to prevent PILs from being misused as this would go against the fundamental intent of the legal system, which is to defend the weak and
oppressed. This fact has been emphasized by the courts several times, as seen in the Kushum Lata v. Union of India case (2006) 6 SCC 180, Court rulings have established that, even in cases where the petitioner has come before the court to address personal concerns, the court may nonetheless deem it essential to investigate the nature of the dispute and its current status in order to serve the public interest.
Concept formulation: The courts have developed and refined a number of ideas in environmental law cases, such as the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle, the Public Trust Doctrine, and Sustainable Development.
AIM OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
The primary goal of the public interest litigation is to accomplish the objectives of a social instrument, namely the Indian Constitution. These include the following:
Ensuring that everyone has equal access to justice, righting injustices against the poor and promoting the healing power of the law, and arousing public awareness of the State’s obligations by offering a workable solution for any violation of citizens’ rights, especially their fundamental rights.
In addition, the PIL’s goal is to provide justice in cases involving bonded labor.
Failure to pay minimum wages
Protection of those living on pavements and in shantytowns
Victims of the Riots’ Petition
Medical profession ethics
Children who are neglected
Trade in flesh in safe havens crimes against women
Poor care while incarcerated
Children incarcerated and in juvenile homes that suffer injustice
Protection against police harassment
Atrocities against ST, SC, OBC etc.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA
The guideline was articulated by the court in the instance of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India where Bhagwati, J quotes: “Any individual from the overall population having adequate intrigue can keep up an activity for legal review for open request emerging from penetrating of open obligation or infringement of some arrangement of the Constitution or the law and look for the requirement of such open obligation and recognition of such sacred or legitimate arrangement.” In a similar case, J. Bhagwati had likewise expressed that “the court must enhance new strategies and techniques to flexibly access to equity to huge masses of people who are denied essential human rights, to whom freedom and opportunity do not have any importance.”
Therefore, anybody living in India or any consumer or social arrangement gathering can approach the country’s highest court in search of legal remedies in cases when the interests of the general public or a specific segment of the people are at stake. Additionally, open premium cases can be recorded without raising the possibility of excessive court costs that differ from covertly thoughtful prosecution. PIL was therefore seen as assistance for those who could only dream of receiving justice. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India is one of the cases that oversee PIL. This lawsuit handles the laborers’ working conditions and the reinforced work because laborers were required to do so.
The Supreme Court commissioned a partnership to record the request, and the court established a board of trustees to look into the matter. It was acknowledged that the laborers were being pressured to try jobs that required reinforcement. The court clarified the reasoning behind hidden PILs in this way: Any individual from the general public acting in good faith may petition the court for assistance under Article 32 and certiorari in situations where an individual or class of individuals to whom injustice is caused because of an infringement of a major right cannot approach the court of legal review under neediness or handicap.
Furthermore, under Article 226 with the intention that the fundamental rights could also be important for the wealthy and thus the well-off to attempt to who have the means to move toward the court, but also for the vast majority of people who continue to live lives of desperation and need and who are unable to pursue legal change due to a lack of awareness, resolve, or resources.
Despite the PIL, the workers in this instance could have just yearned for equality since they had any means, financial or otherwise, to approach the Court of Law. PIL was therefore helpful to these groups of individuals. Similarly, unlike private prosecution in a public interest litigation, the court costs are nominal.
EFFECT ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The development of this genuine instrument to provide equity even to the poor was beneficial for the establishment of a country such as India. PIL has been employed as a tactic against the abominations that are gaining traction with the general people. To wrap up, it may be appropriate to mention Cunningham, “Indian PIL may ideally be a Phoenix: an altogether new innovative emerging out of the remains of the old request.”
The outstanding legal executive quality must be used to the transparent, exceptional, and always unrestricted passion within the administration of the people. The basic remedy is to control insignificant lawsuits by promptly removing them from the area and doing an adequate check. There is no more glaring lack of credibility the legal administration can bear than to have its demands consistently denied with no possible consequences. This court must refrain from granting demands that are unfeasible, regardless of whether the fundamental right is also justified.
