JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND THE INVENTION OF  PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL): TRANSFORMIMG ACCESS TO JUSTICE

ABSTRACT :  

The development of judicial systems across the globe has seen a major shift in the manner in  which courts deliver justice. One of the most groundbreaking developments has been the rise  of judicial activism and the invention of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which have greatly changed the long-standing interaction between the judiciary, the state, and society. This  evolution has democratized justice, providing courts with the ability to respond to systemic  problems impacting marginalized communities and enforce constitutional principles even in  instances where conventional legal remedies do not apply. 

INTRODUCTION : 

The Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has established a special and  revolutionary role for itself in the country’s democratic ethos. Stepping out of the  conventional, passive understanding of law, it has adopted a philosophy of judicial  activism—a dynamic approach where judges exercise their power to interpret the constitution  and laws to serve justice, equity, and social transformation. The most effective and  groundbreaking tool of this activism has been the creation of the Public Interest Litigation  (PIL). This mechanism dramatically changed the very nature of locus standi and turned  access to justice from an elitist privilege for the few to a realizable fact for the many. 

The struggle between judicial activism and restraint is indicative of more profound issues regarding the role of the courts in democratic states. While activism has bridged essential  gaps in governance and protection of rights, it has awakened fears regarding democratic  accountability and separation of powers. 

Successful judicial activism involves judicious balancing – courts have to be watchful  defenders of constitutional rights while being mindful of democratic processes and institutional limitations. It is all about principled activism that must be rooted in  constitutional ideals and not in judicial whim. 

BODY: 

Understanding Judicial Activism 

Judicial activism is the practice of judges interpreting the law in a more expansive way than  its literal interpretation, frequently ruling on matters with wider social and political  consequences. In contrast to judicial restraint, which sees the courts as confining themselves  to literal interpretation of the current laws, judicial activism advocates for a more active role  by the judiciary in solving issues in society and defending basic rights. 

This strategy became fashionable especially in post-colonial democracies where  constitutional regimes assured justice and equality, but available legal devices tended to be  ineffective in dealing with pervasive social disparities. The activist role of the judiciary became paramount in covering the distance between constitutional guarantees and reality on  the ground. 

The Genesis of Public Interest Litigation 

Public Interest Litigation became a potent instrument of judicial activism, completely  revolutionizing the old notion of locus standi (the right to present a case in court).  Historically, only the aggrieved could seek relief from courts. PIL revolutionized this by  enabling concerned citizens, social activists, and organizations to present petitions on behalf  of those who are not able to reach the legal system themselves. 

The idea was first experimented with in the United States during the civil rights movement  but was applied most creatively in India in the 1980s by Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati. The  Supreme Court of India realized that for poor and illiterate millions, the conventional judicial  system was out of reach because of procedural intricacies, fees, and social distance. Some  case laws also define this to the extent : 

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)

This path-breaking case dealt with the condition of undertrial prisoners who languished in  prison for years, more than the maximum sentence for the alleged offence. The judgment of  Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that long-term detention without trial infringed the basic right to  life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case led to the release of  more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners and legal aid as a fundamental right. 

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987) 

After the Bhopal gas tragedy, lawyer M.C. Mehta had filed a PIL regarding a gas leak from a  factory in Delhi. The Supreme Court formulated the doctrine of “absolute liability” for  companies involved in risky industries, making them strictly responsible for any loss or  damage caused to others, without any fault or negligence on their part. This case transformed  Indian environmental law and corporate responsibility. 

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 

This PIL focused on the problem of bonded labor in stone quarries. The intervention by the  Supreme Court resulted in the identification and release of thousands of bonded laborers and  the formulation of elaborate guidelines for their rehabilitation. The case illustrated how PIL  could tackle systemic violations of human rights involving the most vulnerable groups of  society. 

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 

Emerging out of custodial deaths, this case laid down obligatory regulations for police  arrests and detention to avert custodial violence. The eleven-point guidelines contain arrest  memo requirements, medical checks, and legal counseling, which essentially transformed  police practice nationwide. 

International Perspectives 

PIL-like mechanisms have developed around the world, shaped by local environments: 

Brazil: The Ação Civil Pública enables organizations to bring collective rights lawsuits,  being effective in environmental protection and consumer rights. 

South Africa: Post-apartheid constitutional litigation has facilitated meaningful social rights  enforcement, such as access to healthcare and housing.

Colombia: The acción de tutela offers swift judicial protection of human rights, handled  within ten days. 

Impact and Achievements 

PIL has been spectacularly successful in democratizing justice: 

Environmental Protection: Litigation like that brought by M.C. Mehta resulted in the  shutdown of polluting factories near the Taj Mahal and Delhi’s public transport being compulsorily converted to CNG. 

Prison Reform: Systematic intervention has enhanced prison conditions and minimized  custodial violence. 

Right to Information: PIL activism led to the passing of transparency legislation. 

Educational Rights: Cases to ensure mid-day meal schemes and infrastructure in  government schools have enhanced educational accessibility. 

Healthcare Access: Interventions ensuring drug availability and hospital services to remote  areas have enriched healthcare delivery. 

Criticisms and Challenges 

Even with its successes, PIL has a number of criticisms: 

Judicial Overreach: Others contend that activist judges transgress constitutional limits,  intruding into legislative and executive realms. 

Lack of Expertise: Courts could be technologically incompetent to decide complex policy  questions on environmental, economic, or social matters. 

Populist Judgments: Certain judgments could put popular sentiment above legal precedence  or constitutional doctrine. 

Misuse: The process is sometimes abused for publicity, political reasons, or to harass persons  and institutions. 

Gaps in Implementation: Court orders sometimes meet with implementation difficulties  because of bureaucratic opposition or limitations in resources.

CONCLUSION 

Judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation are a new paradigm in legal systems across  the globe, turning the courts into proactive defenders of constitutional precepts as well as  social justice, instead of being mere passive adjudicators. Although discussions persist  regarding proper judicial functions, the contribution of PIL towards democratizing access to  justice and pushing against systemic injustices is quite clear. 

The test for contemporary democracies is how to hold on to this fine line – how to make  judicial activism work for constitutional democracy without transgressing institutional limits.  With societies changing, the interrelationship between judicial activism, PIL, and democratic  government will be at the heart of debates on justice, rights, and the rule of law. 

The innovation of PIL illustrates the ability of legal innovation to fill the gap between  constitutional aspirations and social realities by bringing justice to those who would  otherwise be left behind. Its ongoing development will increasingly influence the future of  legal systems globally, as the courts move through the intricate landscape between law,  justice, and social change. 

REFERENCE(S): 

1. The official website for judgment is eScr. 
2. M.P. Jain (2018) Indian Constitutional Law (8th edition) LexisNexix
3. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)AIR 1987 SC965
4. Bhagwati, P.N. (1985). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation. Columbia  Journal of Transnational Law, 23(3), 561-577