Authored By : Sam S Siryon
Apeejay Stya University School of Legal Studies
Abstract:
All societies have diverse class of people, culture, and species; including those who are economically competent, socially equipped and those who are of the weaker section that are neither educated nor economically independent. For the economically weaker section of the society to seek justice for themselves against their fundamental human right violations, there must exist a formal legal alternative which aids the justice delivery system and extends justice beyond class and status. For this purpose, the concept and use of Public Interest Litigation is crucial for consideration. In every given society, there is a need for law and order, such laws are necessary to ensure the peaceful coexistence of people and culture as well as the promotion of societal growth and social welfare. Laws grant specific rights and obligations to individuals and the society at large, with a primary objective, law aims to ensure public order, safety and health. The end means of law is to serve justice. Justice being the end means of law, is to be served to all sections of the society regardless of their economic, social and political status. This has overtime become the spirit behind the evolution of Public Interest Litigation. Not everyone is aware of the procedures for filing complaints in cases of violations of their fundamental human rights, not everyone has the knowledge, resources and competence of enforcing their rights perhaps, it might be because of the local status, or they might be economically and socially challenged which could be coupled with reasons of lack of knowledge of fundamental rights and the enforcement mechanisms available thereof. It remains the obligation of the Justice system to provide suitable alternative mechanisms to aid those of the socially backward class of the society in ensuring justice is served across the country.
Key Words:
General Interest, social justice, economically and socially disadvantaged groups, locus standi and Public Interest Litigation.
Introduction:
In a democratic system of government, Public Interest Litigation does not only expand access to justice for all citizens, it acts as a vital mechanism to ensure government accountability and transparency. It allows for public-spirited individuals and organizations to file petitions on behalf of those who cannot approach the court themselves due to poverty, ignorance, or lack of resources. This process ensures that legal remedies are available to all sections of the society, not just the privileged. The mechanism is an effective tool for enforcing and expanding the scope of fundamental rights. Public Interest Litigation serves as a justice enforcer by allowing public-spirited citizens to file lawsuits on behalf of marginalized groups or to address issues affecting the general public, such as pollution, human rights violations, or corruptions. It functions as a mechanism to uphold the rule of law by making courts accessible to those who are poor, ignorant, or in disadvantageous position and unable to approach the courts themselves. PILs can hold public authorities accountable, ensure the executive and legislature act within their powers, and drive social change through judicial review.
The concept of Public Interest Litigation has been traced to have its roots in the United States probably around the 1960s as a legal movement by public-spirited lawyers and organizations to provide representation of marginalized groups and to address social, environmental, and civil rights issues. The concept emerged through the efforts of individuals and groups who used the court system to advocate for issues like consumer rights and racial equality, often challenging administrative inaction and lack of legal services for the poor. In early 1960s, the movement arose because the traditional legal system was failing to adequately represent many segments of the population, such as the poor, minorities, and environmental advocates. The ultimate goal for introducing the concept was to create a legal tool for the groups who lacked the resources or ability to access legal services, suing the courts to advocate for the public interest.
India had adopted the concept following a landmark judgement from the United States Supreme Court in the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka which was a case relating to racial segregation of schools for separate blacks from white students. The case was a major cornerstone in the American Civil Rights Movement that provided the legal and moral foundation for dismantling institutionalized racism and segregation in other public arenas and inspired activists to push for broader change, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In India, Public Interest Litigation was introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, driven by the judicial activism of Justices P.N Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. The concept was inspired by the US and became a key tool for social justice, with the first recognized case being Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) – a case which addressed the plight of undertrial prisoners.
The current case arose from an article in the Indian Express newspaper that exposed the plight of hundreds of undertrial prisoners in Bihar jails, many of whom, including women and children had been detained for years without trial. In many instances, the period of their detention exceeded the maximum sentence they would have received had they been convicted. Public Interest Litigation was thus filed by advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani on behalf of these prisoners. This case is considered one of the first reported PIL cases in India.
In Liberia’s legal system, the concept of public interest litigation is not as established as in other jurisdiction as the United States and India. However, several significant legal actions involving human rights, environmental impacts, and constitutional matters have attracted substantial public interest and could be considered for the purpose of this subject, as litigations filed in the interest of the Public. Nonetheless, the recognition of PIL in Liberia is essential especially since the constitution of Liberia supports its concepts in the context of “actio popularis”. It is however no doubt that the primary challenge of PIL in Liberia stems from weak and under-resourced justice system, the prevalence of corruption on an industrial scale and the lack of public awareness and trust in formal legal mechanisms. As a result, there is not a single case, judgement or direction where Public Interest Litigation has come to surface.
Research Methodology:
This paper employs comparative analysis from three legal jurisprudence including India, Liberia and the United States as it relates to the subject matter. The paper is comparative in nature and uses both primary and secondary sources to maintain consistency and authenticity in understanding the concept of Public Interest Litigation form an International Perspective. Primary sources like Landmark judgements, constitutional provisions and statutory legislations are employed in an attempt to evaluate the subject matter more accurately. Secondary sources like journals, articles, blogs, websites and books are used to provide a simplified but structured analysis of the subject.
Research Problems:
The paper evaluates the challenges faced by Public Interest Litigation caused by lack of legal awareness, tailored approach and the legal recognitio and acceptance of PIL as a tool to enforce social justice for socially and economically disadvantaged groups, and to creat an effective justice system where the rights of all sections of the society is enforceable beyond the barriers of status, education and wealth.
Review of Literature:
In India, the Hon’ble Supreme court acts as the guardian of the Indian constitution and has addressed structural injustices through the filing and entertainment of Public Interest Litigation, it has directed government and state authorities to address the challenges of food insecurities, healthcare, protecting forest and preserving cultural heritage. The court balances judicial activism with restraint, ensuring that Public Interest Litigations are not used as a tool of political rivalry or for personal gain. Thus, it applies strict scrutiny in admitting such petitions. Furtherance to such, the court laid down guidelines for the filing of such PILs and its maintainability ensuring that the petition should serve genuine public interest. Public Interest Litigation has been guided by several underlining principles before the Supreme Court, principles like traditional locus standi, larger interests, judicial review, interim relief and monitoring role.
Judicial Rationale and Scope of Public Interest Litigation in India
The judicial and/or legal rationale in entertaining PILs in India is nothing other than to ensure justice for the marginalized, to hold the government accountable, and to promote social welfare through a more accessible and democratized legal system. It allows any citizen to approach the courts on behalf of those who cannot represent themselves due to poverty or other disadvantages, addressing issues like systemic failures, upholding fundamental rights, and ensuring accountability for public bodies. Thus, the rationale includes addressing systemic problems through judicial action, promoting social justice, and creating positive change in areas like environmental protection, prison reforms, and public health. In India, Public Interest Litigation is a broad concept and encompasses of issues like social justice, human rights, and government accountability, with a focus on protecting the rights of marginalized and susceptible sections of the society. It can be used to address variety of injustices including environmental protection, child labor and abuse, police atrocities, and violations of fundamental rights.
In recent occurrences, the concept of PIL has been observed to be filed mostly in case of environmental protection and police atrocities in India. Some of these can bring to light cases filed by Advocate Mahesh Chandra Mehta, a public interest attorney from India since 1984 and some of these cases includes; M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors (1996), M.C Mehta vs Union of India (1987) etc. these cases address the issue of environmental protection in the interest of Public health and safety in India.
The United States: Rationale, Scope and Challenges
The United States being regarded as the birthplace of modern concept of Public Interest Litigation where it was popularly called ‘Public Interest Law’ and as a branch of law which was submerged under the public interest law with its credit being given to Professor Abram Chayes of the Harvard Law School in 1976 and was practiced by lawyers in the United States seeking to precipitate social change through court-order decrees that reform legal rules, reinforces existing laws, and articulate public norms.
In the United States, the Judicial rationale for entertaining PILs stems from addressing gaps in legal representation and the use of litigation as a tool for social change, protecting groups that are otherwise unrepresented. This is based on the idea that the standard legal services marketplace is insufficient for certain interests, such as the poor, environmentalists, and racial minorities. Thus, by allowing individuals or groups to file lawsuits on behalf of a broader public interest. The courts can use these litigations to hold government accountable, ensuring public authorities act reasonably, and expanding the law to address social and environmental issues. As the concept if broad in nature, the United States faces serious challenges as it relates to PILs in the Judicial system. These challenges are related to judicial overreach, political manipulation, and the potential for misuse for personal gain, The United States have historically been more restrictive with PILs, often limiting its use to the possibility of frivolous cases and delays in the legal system due to a large number of pending cases.
In several landmark judgements, the court have entertained PIL attempting to address historically challenged issues which ranged from protection of fundamental rights to environmental protection. Amongst these cases are; Marbury vs. Madison 1803, a judgement which established the principle of judicial review that allows the Hon’ble Supreme courts to strike down laws that are violative of the constitution. Another significant case was the 1963 case of Gideon vs. Wainwright in which the Supreme curt ruled that the state must provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in felony cases, ensuring that the right to counsel was fundamental right for all Americans, not limited to those who could actually afford it. These cases highlight the stance of the United States judiciary in providing justice to the weaker and disadvantaged citizens as a tool for ensuring social justice.
Liberia Judicial Acceptance, Scope and Applications of Public Interest Litigations:
The concept of PIL has been a constitutional mechanism provided for individuals or associations to bring cases to court if their rights, or the rights of others in the public, have been violated by the government or someone acting under its authority. The Liberian constitution guarantees the right for any person to access the court if any rights granted under the Constitution or legislation are contravened. This framework allows for cases to be brought forward by an injured party or a relevant association, effectively relaxing the strict rule of locus standi (the right to appear or be heard in court) to address broader public concerns.
The Liberian Constitution although does not explicitly provides for the filing and entertainment of Public Interest Litigation by name but the constitutional framework allows for the judiciary to interpret its powers and the scope of individual and collective rights broadly to address matters of public concern, which is most similar to how PIL is filed in other jurisprudence like India where courts have relaxed traditional locus standi rules for public-spirited individuals. Typically, this is seen under the provisions of Article 65 of the Liberian Constitution which vests the “Judicial Power of the Republic” in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any other subordinate courts established by the legislature. This broad grant of power is the foundation for the Judiciary to hear a wide range of cases, including those with public dimension. Complementarily, Article 66 grants full authority to the Supreme Court to be final arbitrator of constitutional matters, thus allowing for judicial review of actions by public authorities.
Public Interest Litigation and Locus Standi: Rule or Overrule:
Public Interest Litigation has a transformative and interconnected relationship with the traditional rule of locus standi, essentially creating an exception that liberalizes ‘standing to sue’ to ensure broader access to justice for marginalized communities and public interest issues. This does not however mean that the concept of Public Interest Litigation has emerged to overrule the traditional rule to sue method in the judiciary, but that it has come to rather expand and create a more accessible justice system for all people.
The traditional rule of locus standi is a legal principle which guided the filing and entertainment of suits on grounds of ‘right to sue’ basis. It requires a party to demonstrate a direct and tangible injury or sufficient personal interest in the matter to bring a case to court. This limited legal actions only to the person whose immediate legal rights were violated, thereby preventing strangers or third parties from interfering in judicial proceedings. However, the emergence of Public Interest Litigation was a form of judicial activism to bypass the rigidness of traditional rule. Its interconnectedness lies in the fact that PIL fundamentally redefines who can approach the court by allowing public-spirited individual, groups or even the court itself (Suo moto) to file a petition on behalf of those who are unable to access justice due to socio-economic disadvantages or lack of awareness.
Challenges of Public Interest Litigation from an International Perspective:
After careful observation and evaluation of the facts associated with PIL in Liberia, India and the United States, these are major challenges of Public Interest Litigation observed in the three countries, reaching from lack of formal applications, awareness, judicial overreach, misuse, and frivolous petitions to competing rights, political manipulations and national autonomy concerns. Due to the broad scope of PIL, the decision to entertain them lies at the discretion of the Judiciary which makes it challenging from the opinion of the executive and legislative and sometimes is manipulated by politics either on part of the Petitioner for his personal gain and fame or on part of public officials for political interests. Another growing challenge is the attempt to create a scope of application for the entertainment of PIL which could limit it only in cases of environmental issues, prisoners’ rights, gross human right violations etc. these would directedly hamper the true objective of PIL in ensuring access to justice.
Suggestions and Conclusion:
Public Interest Litigation is only effective when it provides a legal avenue for underrepresented groups to seek justice and holds government entities accountable. In India, it is a judge-made tool for social change characterized by judicial proactiveness thus, by accepting letters or telegraphs as formal petitions and keeping court fees nominal, the judiciary makes justice accessible to the poor and marginalized who cannot afford traditional legal costs. In the United States, the effectiveness of PIL is driven y well-established non-profit legal aid organizations and specific legal procedures. It could also be successful by the acceptance and integration of Class Action Lawsuits which allows large groups of people with similar grievances to sue collectively, thereby providing leverage and influence for historically disadvantaged communities. In Liberia, it is crucial for the acceptance and applications of PIL in the judicial system by lawyers who are public-spirited individuals driven by the desire to ensure social justice and the cost-free access to justice especially considering the post-conflict context which has left Liberia in ruins of corruption, deception and poverty. PIL can be used as an instrument in holding government officials accountable for corrupt practices and the misuse of public funds, especially with technical and financial support from international partners. It could also be sued to address the lack of basic rights and public services resulting in the general lack of public provisions like clean water, sewerage, electricity, quality educational services and healthcare etc. it is instrumental in demanding government actions on essential public services.
Therefore, in all three countries the effectiveness lies on ensuring genuine, bona fide intentions to serve the public good, preventing misuse for personal or political gain, and maintaining a balance between judicial intervention and the roles of the executive and legislature.
References:
Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S 483 (1954)
Civil Rights Act, 1964 (88th United States Congress) 88-352 78 Statute of 241 Act of US Congress
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 1979 AIR 1369
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Insights from Supreme Court Practice; Rajendra Law Office
Supreme Court emphasizes that abuse must not defeat the core purpose of access to justice
https://rajendralawoffice.com/public-interest-litigation-pil-insights-from-supreme-court-practice/
Adv. M.C Mehta; Born October 12, 1946 (79) years old in Rajouri. A Public Interest Attorney from India, won numerous landmark judgements from India’s Supreme Court since 1984, including introducing lead-free gasoline to India and reducing the industrial pollution fouling the Ganga and eroding the Taj Mahal.
M.C Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and Ors (13 December 1999) AIR Online 1996 SC 711
M.C Mehta vs. Union of India and Ors (20 December 1986) AIR 1987 Sc 1086
