PRINCIPLES EVOLVED IN PIL. Public Interest Litigation in India.

  PRINCIPLES OF P I L. 

Public Interest Litigation in India.

The principles evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases for deciding different types of PIL are as under: 

1. WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION: 

Any person interested in the welfare of the people who are in a disadvantaged position can invoke the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Court becomes constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of these people and direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises.

2. RELAXATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE: 

If any issue relating to enforcement of fundamental rights of large number of people or public vis-à-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a PIL. In such cases, the Court relaxes the procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings.

3. INJUSTICE TO LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE: 

In such cases, Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. 

4. LOCUS STANDI RULE RELAXED:

The locus standi rule is relaxed to enable the Court to look into the grievances of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong caused to them for violation of any constitutional or legal right. 

5. STATE NOT TO RAISE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PETITION.

If the Court is prima facie satisfied about violation of any constitutional right or a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.

6. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA OR OTHER ANALAGOUS PRINCIPLES.

Although procedural laws apply on PIL Cases but the question as to whether apply depending on the nature of the petition as also facts and circumstances of the case. 

7. PRIVATE DISPUTE NOT PIL.

The dispute between two warring groups purely realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a PIL. 

8. APPROPRIATENESS OF PRIVATE INTEREST OR PERSONAL GRIEVANCES.

In an appropriate case, although the petitioner has moved a Court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the public interest may treat it necessary to enquiry into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. 

9. COMMISSIONS TO BE APPOINTED IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS.

The Court in special situations may appoint Commission or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such committees. 

 10. COURT TO DECIDE WITHIN KNOWN AREAS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

 The Courts would ordinarily not step out of the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power akin to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 

11. HIGH COURT NOT TO QUESTION CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE OR RULE.

 Ordinarily the Hon’ble High Court should not entertain a writ petition by way of PIL questioning constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule.

RELEVANT QUOTES FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS: 

1. AKASH COKE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD AND ANOTHER , APPELANTS VS COAL CONTROLLER AND OTHER REPORTED IN AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2614, 

Para: 33 -----While entertaining a public interest litigation, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the High Court under Article 226 thereof are entitled to entertain a petition moved by a person having knowledge in the subject matter of lis and , thus , having an interest therein as contra distinguished from a busy body, is the welfare of the people. The rule of locus has been relaxed by courts for such purposes with a view to enable a citizen of India to approach the Courts to vindicate legal injury or legal wrong caused to a section of people by way of violation of any statutory or constitutional right. 

2. SUBHASH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR REPORTED IN AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT SC 420.

…… “Public Interest Litigation completes legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. 

3. JANATA DAL VS H.S. CHOWDHARY REPORTED IN AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 892 

Para 51----“Lexically the expression “ Public Interest Litigation” (PIL) means a legal action initiated in a Court of Law for enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

Para 60: “The requirement of locus standi of a party to a litigation is mandatory ;because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily ascertained at the threshold.

Para 61 & 62: Since the dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the law which can be best achieved to advance the cause of community or disadvantaged groups and individuals or public interest by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any oblique consideration but acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for judicial redress for public injury to put the judicial machinery in motion like action popularis of Roman Law whereby any citizen could bring such an action in respect of public delict.

Para 89: “ It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of person by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed on contravention of any constitutional right or legal provisions or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of person is by reason of determinate class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief , any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order of writ in the High Court under Article 226. 

Para 90: …"any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law. Furthering the cause of justice and accelerating the pace of realization of the constitutional objectives.” 

Para 107: It is thus clear that only a person acting bonafide having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the court to wipe out tears of the poor an needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not to a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. 

4. OVERLAND INVESTMENT LTD VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN AIR 1997 CALCUTTA 18, DB.

Para 19—---“…Supreme Court of India by various decisions have in fact and in substance extended the concept of locus standi to such an extent that in case of any legality or irregularity the Court may intervene even at the instance of the stranger inasmuch as personal or legal interest principle is not required to be satisfied in case where a writ petition is filed to espouse the cause of large number of people who are poor and ignorant of their rights and who have no means to reach the Court and where the interest of the people and the Society are involved. 

5. S.P.GUPTA VS PRESIDENT OF INDIA REPORTED IN AIR 1982 SC 149 .

It was held as follows: “ whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or public authority which is contrary to the constitution or law, any member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not mere a busybody or meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest……What is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public would have to be determined by the court in each individual case. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule or any strait –jacket formula for the purpose of defining or delimiting ‘sufficient interest’. It has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the Court’. 

6. BIHAR LEGAL SUPPORT SOCIETY VS CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA REPORTED IN AIR 1987 SC 87: 

It was held: “Ordinarily only a person whose rights are violated can move a court for redress. However, where there is likelihood of any Government action injuring the interest of many persons, any one may move the court for relief. 

7. IN R.V.COMMISSIONER OF POLIC, METROPOLITAN E.P.(LUCKBORN , 1973 1 WB 629, 

Lord Denning observed: “ if there is a good ground for supposing that a government department or a public authority is transgressing the law or is about to transgress , in a way which offends or injures thousand of Her Majesty’s subjects, then in the last resort any of the offended or the injured can draw it to the attention of the Court of law and seek to have the law enforced." 

8. K.SRINIVAS VS R.M.PREMCHAND AND OTHERS REPORTED IN SUPREME COURT CASES 1994(6) 620.

 “A writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come only with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective.”

Dear Readers!

A lot of effort has been put into the blog for all to know and learn. However, we are humans and humans err.  Please feel free to correct us in the comment. 

 

If you like or dislike the post, kindly comment below the post and share your response. You are also requested to comment with your kind suggestions.

 

Thanks for Reading. J

Team Lex Polis. 

Disclaimer.