Authored By: Vidhya Jadon
Amity University
Introduction
One of the most important judicial innovations in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL). PIL was established to make justice accessible to discriminated and underprivileged parts of the society whereby individuals or communities can address courts in an effort to enforce the basic rights and civic responsibilities. Indian courts changed into a social justice tool by liberalizing the traditional rule of locus standi.
Nevertheless, due to time PIL has been abused to serve personal, political and publicity interests. What used to be a potent instrument of the poor has in most cases become an instrument of resolving personal conflict or stifling the administrative processes. This paper discusses the concept of PIL, how it has developed over the years, how it has been abused, judicial reactions to it, as well as whether it should be reformed.
Idea and Development of Public Interest Litigation.
It is in the late 1970s and early 1980s that Public Interest Litigation began to take shape in India as a reaction to mass poverty, illiteracy and social injustice. The courts acknowledged that high levels of procedural barriers did not allow certain sectors of the society to enjoy justice.
In S P Gupta v Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that any community minded citizen may go to the court to seek redress of societal injustices or implementation of constitutional rights of those who did not have the power to approach the courts. This ruling formed the basis of PIL jurisprudence in India.
PIL continued to be broadened in cases on bonded labour, reform of prison, environmental protection and the rights of women. The courts took the activist stance to make sure that the justice was not legalized under technicalities.
Public Interest Litigation Objectives.
The key goals of PIL are:
Ensuring the access to justice to the disadvantaged and marginalized groups; The enforcement of the basic rights stipulated in Part III of the Constitution;
Assuring accountability of the government authorities;
Securing state resources and environment;
Advocacy of constitutional rule of law.
The idea of PIL was supposed to be used in serving communal interests as opposed to personal grievances.
Types and manifestations of PIL Misuse.
Although having noble aims, PIL has been more and more abused within the past decades. The abuse of PIL can be found in a broad category as follows:
PIL.
Numerous PILs are being filed so as to pursue individual or business interests under the pretext of serving the interests of the people. Courts have noted that litigants tend to claim that a personal conflict was PIL in order to have faster relief or publicity.
PILs of Political and Publicity Character.
PILs are even filed in order to target political adversaries, disrupt the administration or draw the press coverage. These petitions overload the courts and distract their focus on real causes in the society.
Hampering of Administrative Processes.
The frivolous PILs tend to question policy decisions and administrative acts without violation of any of the constitutional provisions. This translates into court meddling in affairs that should be handled by the executive thereby causing delays in development projects.
Forum Shopping and Abuse of Process.
There are other litigants who may bring PILs in various courts regarding the same case contending to harass the authorities or create pressure and this is an abuse of the judicial process.
Courts Response towards the Misuse of PIL.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have time and again raised their alarm towards increasing misuse of PIL.
The Supreme Court in the case of Subhasher Kumar v State of Bihar stated that PIL has no justification on personal gain, personal profit, or political gain. The Court underlined that the petitions which do not contain bona fide public interest are to be dismissed.
Likewise, in Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal, the Court cautioned against the so called publicity interest litigation, and noted that courts should make sure that PILs are filed in a clean hand and with a pure motive.
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal provided detailed rules to avoid the misuse of PIL. The Court emphasized on the close examination of PIL petitions and suggested exemplary costs to frivolous litigants.
Judges have become more stringent in recent years by denying the PILs that disrupt the policy making without any manifest breach of the constitutional or statutory rules.
Effects of PIL Misuse in the Judicial System.
There are numerous negative effects of the abuse of PIL:
It puts a strain on court dockets, delays true cases;
It takes the judicial time and resources off serious constitutional issues;
It discredits the use of PIL as an instrument of social justice;
It promotes judicial usurping and interferes with the separation of powers.
Unnecessary and luxurious PILs undermine judicial efficiency and undermine the belief of the people in the justice delivery system.
Judicial Reform and Restraint are needed.
Although the courts will avoid encouraging abuse, they should also avoid stifling the legitimate PILs. There is a need to take a middle ground to champion the initial spirit of PIL.
Key measures include:
Vigorous examination of the credentials of the petitioner and his intent;
Exemplary costs to be imposed on frivolous or motivated PILs;
Restricting the PILs in purely policy questions unless such violation of the constitution is apparent; Promoting administrative solutions and alternative dispute resolution.
Judicial restraint is needed to ensure institutional balance without putting the interest of the population in danger.
Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has made the contribution of Public Interest Litigation to constitutional governance which has been one of its most potent contributions. It has given voice to the voiceless and made democracy to be more accountable. Nevertheless, it is currently at risk of losing its validity and usefulness due to rising abuse.
The recent trend in judiciary to select PILs that are frivolous and punish those who abuse is a positive move. A delicate balance must be observed preserving PIL as a tool of social justice, that on the one hand, it encourages real causes of the populace, and on the other, it advocates strong opposition to inspired or wanton petitions. It is only then that PIL can keep on its constitutional mandate.
Reference(S)(OSCOLA)
S P Gupta v Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87 (SC).
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 (SC).
Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 (SC).
Balwant Singh Chaufal v State of Uttaranchal (2010) 3 SCC 402 (SC).
H S Chowdhary v Janata Dal (1992) 4 SCC 305 (SC).
Indian Constitutional Law, MP Jain (8th edn, LexisNexis 2018).
Upendra Baxi, taking suffering seriously: social action litigation in the Supreme Court of India (1985) 4 Third World Legal Studies 107.
HWR Wade and CF Forsyth, Administrative Law (11th edn, Oxford University Press 2014).
