1. What is PIL ? PIL or Public Interest Litigation is a right given to the members of the public to maintain an action for judicial redressal of public injury. Such injury may arise from breach of public duty or due to violation of some provision of the Constitution of India. The members of the public by filing a PIL are entitled to and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of the constitutional law or legal provisions. 2. What is the purpose of PIL ? Public interest litigation is the device by which public participation in judicial review of the administrative action or remedy in case of administrative inaction is assured. 3. In which courts PIL can be filed ? PIL can be filed only in the Supreme court (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) and the High Courts (under Article 226). It can not be filed in the district courts under the existing system. 4. Who can file a PIL ? Any public-spirited person can file a PIL. It is not necessary that the person filing the PIL has suffered any injury himself or has had personal grievance to litigate. The Supreme Court has laid down the following principles governing the question of locus standie of a person filing the PIL. As per these principles, any person having sufficient interest can file the PIL provided : #There is a personal injury or injury to a disadvantaged section of the public for whom access to the legal justice system is difficult on account of financial incapacity or otherwise. #The petitioner (i.e. person filing the PIL) has sufficient interest to maintain an action of public injury #The injury must have arisen because of breach of public duty or violation of any law or of the any of the provisions of the Constitution particularly the fundamental rights, by the Govt. departments or the functionaries of the Govt. #The petitioner must seek enforcement of such public duty and observance and grant of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws. However, Supreme Court sounded a word of caution in filing PILs in the wake of motivated PILs at the instance of some vested interests. It was held by Supreme Court in Ashok Kr. Pandey vs State of West Bengal VII (2003) SLT 343 that persons acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have locus standie and can approach court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit. Court has to be extremely careful to see that under guise of redressing public grievance, it does not encroach upon sphere reserved by Constitution to Executive and Legislature. When frivolous pleas are taken, Court should do well not only to dismiss the petition but also to impose exemplary costs. Other important judgments of Supreme Court in this regard are : Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd.vs SP Gururaja VI (2003) SLT 178 Guruvayur Devaswom vs C.K.Rajan 2003 (6) SCALE 401 Balco Employees Union vs Union of India VIII (2001) SLT 321 Raunaq International Ltd. Vs IVR Construction Ltd. X (1998) SLT 135 5. What is the method of filing a PIL ? The conventional method of filing a PIL is to file a petition, more or less in the form of a plaint, containing a list of facts that are necessary for deciding the case. However, over the years, the scope of PIL has been widened and now no particular format is required for filing the PIL. The court can admit a PIL even if it is not made in the form of a formal plaint. The Court can initiate a PIL even on receiving a letter addressed to the Court whether with or without an affidavit. In the case of Shri Rama Murthy vs State of Karnataka reported in 1997 II AD SC 1, a letter written by a prisoner from the jail to the Chief Justice of India was treated as PIL. The letter pointed out the horrible state of affairs in the prisons. The matter assumed great importance concerning the rights of prisoners and the delay in trial and various directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this PIL. However, once a PIL has been filed, it can not be subsequently withdrawn. The Court may proceed suo moto. These rules regarding the PIL have been enunciated by the Supreme court to ensure that the PIL does not become the device to settle personal scores and that the people who initiate the proceedings under a PIL do not have any vested interests. If personal litigation is filed by someone under the garb of public interest litigation, cost may be imposed on the person instituting such litigation, as observed by the Supreme Court in Chhetriya Pradushan vs State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 2060. Most of the decisions concerning the environment and pollution have been passed by the Supreme court in the PILs filed by the public spirited people. Certain people are known for filing PILs in the public interest. These include Mr. M.C.Mehta (who is a lawyer and has even won Magsaysy Award for his remarkable work on environmental issues. It was on the petition filed by him that the Supreme Court passed orders regarding running of public transport on CNG, shifting of industries, removal of industries from within a particular distance from Taj Mahal, banning of parks for public functions, etc.), Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Mr. Prashant Bhushan etc. Mr. H.D.Shourie who used to file petitions under the banner of his society called Common Cause, has since expired. 6. Role of PIL in expanding scope of Article 21 The scope of article 21 of the Constitution of India has been expanded very wide while deciding various landmark PILs decided by the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has held that Fundamental rights can be enforced even against private bodies and individuals. It has held that jurisdiction enjoyed by Supreme Court under Article 32 is very wide. For the exercise of this jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the person who is the victim of violation of his fundamental rights should personally approach the court as the court can itself take the cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or on a petition of any public spiritied individual. In recent time, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of right to life envisaged under Article 21. It has held that Right to Life does not merely mean animal existence but means something more, namely, the right to live with human dignity. Right to life includes all those aspects of life which go to make a life meaningful, complete and worth living. See : Francis Coralie vs Delhi Admn. AIR 1981 SC 746 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corp. AIR 1986 SC 180 DTC vs DTC Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101 Boddistwa Gautam vs Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 SC 922 From the book COURTS POLICE AUTHORITIES & COMMON MAN - Sunil Goel
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:15:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015