Public Interest Litigation In India: A Compilation Of Judicial Judgments On Its Use And Misuse

Coverage of this Article

1. Introduction
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a powerful tool for advancing social justice and protecting the rights of citizens in India.

2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)

3. Conclusion
- The compilation of these judicial judgments underscores the pivotal role of Public Interest Litigation in advancing the cause of justice and protecting the rights of citizens in India.

Key Takeaways

Evolution and Significance of PIL.

Balancing Public Interest and Misuse.

Locus Standi and Access to Justice.

Judicial Role in Good Governance.

Introduction:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a powerful tool for advancing social justice and protecting the rights of citizens in India. However, like any legal mechanism, PIL is not immune to misuse and abuse. This article presents a compilation of significant judicial judgments that address the use and misuse of PIL in India. These judgments provide valuable insights into the evolving jurisprudence surrounding PIL and highlight the delicate balance between its proper utilization and potential exploitation.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a unique feature of the Indian legal system, which allows individuals or organizations to seek judicial redress for issues affecting the public interest. PIL has been instrumental in addressing a wide range of societal concerns, including environmental protection, human rights, and administrative transparency. Nevertheless, there have been instances of PIL being used for personal gain or to settle political scores. This compilation of judicial judgments aims to shed light on both the positive impact and potential pitfalls of PIL in India.

Important judgments: 

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the importance of PIL as a means to ensure access to justice for marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society. The Court emphasized that PIL can be filed by any person acting bona fide in public interest. This judgment laid the foundation for PIL in India and established that the locus standi requirement could be relaxed to accommodate concerns of public importance.
• According to this precedent, it was explicitly stated that any individual associated with a social or public collective, acting with genuine intent, possesses the entitlement to initiate the 'writ jurisdiction' of the higher courts, specifically under Article 226. Alternatively, if they opt to engage the 'writ jurisdiction' of the Supreme Court, they can exercise their prerogatives under Article 32. Through these provisions, individuals have the avenue to seek remedy for any form of transgression or misuse of a person's rights, whether such rights are rooted in legality or constitutionality.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): The Supreme Court, in this case, expanded the scope of PIL to address the rights and welfare of bonded laborers. The Court held that PIL could be invoked to seek enforcement of fundamental rights and to protect vulnerable groups from exploitation. This judgment highlighted the potential of PIL to bring about systemic change and protect the rights of marginalized individuals. Justice Bhagwati, who championed the significant Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India case, articulated an observation asserting that the courts were engaged in the aforementioned endeavors, which constitute modest endeavors leading to the realization of the constitutional objectives of the judicial system. These efforts are carefully crafted to avoid conflicting with the executive and legislative branches.
• The case of MC Mehta vs. Union of India stands out as the foremost illustration of a Public Interest Litigation instance. This PIL was initiated to address the issue of water contamination identified in the revered Ganga river. The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, took this legal recourse to halt the ongoing pollution of the Ganga. The verdict of the highest court decreed that while the petitioner might not be the proprietor of the river, they possess the right to proceed with the case. This is because the petitioner's primary objective in filing this case pertains to the welfare of the general populace, allowing for the enforcement of statutory provisions.
• Medha Patkar v. Union of India (1996): In this instance, the Supreme Court cautioned against the misuse of PIL for political or personal vendettas. The Court stressed that PIL must be used for genuine public interest concerns and not to settle private scores. This judgment reinforced the principle that PIL should serve as a tool for social justice rather than a means for ulterior motives.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): The Supreme Court, in this case, emphasized that PIL should not be entertained in matters involving individual grievances or private disputes. The Court held that the primary purpose of PIL is to address issues of broad public interest and systemic importance. This judgment highlighted the need to maintain a clear distinction between legitimate PIL cases and matters that are essentially private in nature.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): In this judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of PIL as a means to ensure accountability and transparency in governance. The Court emphasized that PIL can be filed by public-spirited individuals and organizations to prevent abuse of power and to uphold the rule of law. This case reaffirmed the role of PIL in promoting good governance and safeguarding public interest.
• Another parallel issue that has garnered criticism from the Indian public is the process of significantly diluting the fundamental principle underpinning the concept of 'Locus Standi'. This ambiguous aspect has been a focal point of various arguments that highlight the erosion of the Locus Standi principle. This erosion has resulted in the exposure of sensitive information, such as the concealed personal interests of the petitioner, the ulterior motives behind the PILs aimed at seeking publicity rather than justice, and the exploitation of PILs to advance political agendas. These instances have acted as a discouragement for individuals, impeding them from filing PILs that hold significance for the future.

Conclusion: 

• The compilation of these judicial judgments underscores the pivotal role of Public Interest Litigation in advancing the cause of justice and protecting the rights of citizens in India. While these judgments have recognized the positive impact of PIL, they have also underscored the need to guard against its misuse for personal or political gain. The evolution of PIL jurisprudence reflects a continuous effort to strike a balance between upholding the principles of justice and preventing the abuse of this powerful legal mechanism.
• In an era marked by complex challenges and emerging paradigms, the compilation of these judicial pronouncements serves as a testament to the enduring power of PIL to shape the course of social justice and democratic governance. As we move forward, it is imperative to heed the lessons embedded within these judgments and to harness the potency of PIL as a beacon of hope, ensuring that it remains a potent force for change while guarding against its potential misuse.