Public interest litigation

Also called: PIL, Social action litigation, SAL · Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Class 9, Ch 6 "Democracy"; Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

Public interest litigation (PIL) is a case filed in the Supreme Court (Article 32) or a High Court (Article 226) for a public cause, not for private gain. Any public-spirited person or group acting in good faith can file it, often for people who cannot come to court themselves. It is also called social action litigation. It is the main tool of judicial activism, meaning courts actively protect rights and make the government answer for its actions. Through PIL, the poor, prisoners and bonded labourers could reach the courts for the first time.

Explanation

How PIL changed the old rules

• Locus standi means the right to bring a case to court.
• Old rule: only the person who was actually harmed could sue.

• From about 1979: the Court let public-spirited people, groups and lawyers sue for others. These were people kept out of court by poverty, illiteracy or prison.

• Bona fide means acting in good faith. Only a petitioner acting bona fide is allowed to sue for others. Outsiders who interfere for their own reasons, called busybodies, are kept out.

• Why it grew after the Emergency:
• The Court's reputation suffered during the Emergency (1975–77).
• After 1977, the Court won back public trust by turning towards the poor and voiceless.
• Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer led this change.

Routes into court

• Article 32 (Supreme Court): this is the right to go to the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights. It is itself a Fundamental Right.
• Article 226 (High Court): a High Court can issue writs for Fundamental Rights and also "for any other purpose". So its power here is wider than the Supreme Court's.
• Two ways to reach the Supreme Court: a formal writ petition, or a letter to the Chief Justice of India that raises a question of public importance [2].
• Epistolary jurisdiction: the court treats a letter or postcard as a writ petition. The Supreme Court has treated letters, telegrams, postcards and news reports as writ petitions on many occasions [2].
• NCERT says the Court later abandoned this practice.

• In fact, the practice continues but is screened. Letters are sorted under the Supreme Court's PIL guidelines on letter-petitions (1988, later revised). Only listed categories are accepted:

  • bonded labour
  • neglected children
  • complaints from jails
  • police harassment
  • atrocities on women, SCs and STs
  • environmental pollution

• Suo motu cognizance: the court takes up a matter on its own, often after reading a news report or a letter. No one needs to file a petition.

How a PIL moves, step by step

1. Filing. The petition states the relief sought, the grounds and the petitioner's credentials. It must also declare that the petitioner has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the matter [3].

2. Screening. Before accepting the PIL, the court should [3]: - verify the petitioner's credentials - be satisfied, on a first look, that the contents are correct - be satisfied that a substantial public interest is involved

3. Fact-finding. A PIL is not an ordinary contest between two sides, so the court uses new tools: - Fact-finding commissions: officers or experts sent to inquire on the spot. - Amicus curiae ("friend of the court"): a lawyer the court appoints to help it. This lawyer represents neither side. - Non-adversarial approach (Bhagwati): the court works with all parties to find the truth.

4. Orders and follow-up. The court can use court-appointed committees and continuing monitoring orders. Under these, the case stays open and the court checks that the government obeys its orders.

Limits on PIL

• Misuse: NCERT warns of "private interest litigation", where a private dispute is dressed up as a public cause. Some petitions are filed for publicity, or as political or business weapons.
• Overreach: sometimes courts order things that are the executive's job, such as bans on bandhs or running schemes. NCERT's bandhs cartoon shows this. Critics say it blurs the separation of powers, meaning the division of work between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
• Curbs set by the courts: busybodies have no locus standi (1992). Courts may impose exemplary costs, meaning heavy fines, on frivolous petitions (2010).

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base: Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts). The rights most often enforced are Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), Article 23 (ban on forced labour) and Article 24 (ban on child labour in hazardous work).
• Landmark cases:
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978; 1980):
  • In 1978 the Court examined bar fetters (iron chains on prisoners) and solitary confinement.
  • In 1980 a Tihar Jail prisoner sent a scribbled note about torture to Justice Krishna Iyer. The note was turned into a petition.
  • The Court held that prisoners keep their Fundamental Rights.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979):
  • An advocate filed a petition based on newspaper reports.
  • Undertrials (people in jail who have not yet been tried) in Bihar had been held longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crime.
  • Speedy trial was held to be part of Article 21, and thousands were freed.
  • It is often called the first reported PIL.
• Khatri v. State of Bihar (1980–81): police blinded undertrial prisoners with acid in Bhagalpur. The case brought state custody under Article 21.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the First Judges case:
  • Any member of the public acting bona fide may sue under Article 32 or 226 for people who cannot sue themselves.
  • The case also warned against busybodies.
• PUDR v. Union of India (1982): workers building the Asiad (Asian Games) projects were paid less than the minimum wage.
  • Paying below the minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23.
  • Child labour on construction sites violates Article 24.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): a case on bonded labour in Haryana's stone quarries. Bonded labour is work done to pay off a debt, with no freedom to leave. Bhagwati held that the poor need a non-adversarial approach.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): held that the right to livelihood is part of Article 21.
• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992): busybodies and meddlesome outsiders have no locus standi in a PIL.

• State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): laid down PIL guidelines and allowed exemplary costs on frivolous petitions [3].

• Recent suo motu matters:

• Prisons: In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013, was registered as a public interest writ petition. High Powered Committees were directed to deal with prison conditions [5].
• Migrant workers (2020): Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 6 of 2020 dealt with workers stranded in the COVID-19 lockdown [4].
  • The NHRC was allowed to join the case on 5 June 2020.
  • The Court later directed the Centre to build a portal to register unorganised and migrant workers.
• COVID supplies (2021): the Court took suo motu notice of the supply of oxygen, medicines and essential services during the second wave.

• RG Kar hospital case (2024): Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 2 of 2024 followed the August 2024 crime at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, and the later attacks on doctors. It was listed on 22 August 2024 [6].

• Spread abroad: the PIL model spread to South Asia and Africa. South Africa's Constitution (1996) lets anyone acting in the public interest approach the courts.

Don't confuse with

• Article 136 (special leave to appeal): this lets the Supreme Court hear appeals against judgments of lower courts. It is not a PIL route. PIL comes only under Article 32 or Article 226.
• Ordinary writ petition: it is filed by the person whose own right was harmed. A PIL is filed by anyone acting bona fide for a public cause, and the petitioner must declare no personal interest [3].
• Suo motu cognizance: here the court acts on its own and no one files a petition. A PIL needs a petitioner, even if the petition is only a letter.
• Judicial activism: this is the court's broader active approach to protecting rights. PIL is the main tool through which that activism works.

Prelims Hooks

• PIL can be filed under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts), not Article 136. Article 226 is wider because it covers "any other purpose".
• Hussainara Khatoon (1979): speedy trial is part of Article 21. It is often called the first reported PIL.
• PUDR (1982), Asiad workers: paying below the minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23. Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984): bonded labour in Haryana's stone quarries.
• Sunil Batra (1980): a prisoner's note to Justice Krishna Iyer became a petition. This is an example of epistolary jurisdiction.
• S.P. Gupta (1981) relaxed locus standi and is also the First Judges case. Janata Dal (1992) barred busybodies. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) set PIL guidelines and allowed exemplary costs.
• An amicus curiae helps the court and does not represent either party. In Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 6 of 2020 (migrant workers), the NHRC was allowed to intervene [4].

Mains Points

• For PIL: rights on paper became rights in practice.
• Relaxed locus standi, letter-petitions and amicus curiae brought undertrials, bonded labourers and migrant workers into court.
• Article 21 grew to cover speedy trial, dignity in custody and livelihood (Hussainara 1979; migrant workers 2020 [4]).

• It made the executive accountable and opened the courts to groups as well as individuals.

• Against PIL: overreach and a burden on the courts.

• Orders on policy, bandhs and administration blur the separation of powers.
• Courts lack the expertise and the tools to run long monitoring orders, such as the prisons case, W.P. (C) 406/2013 [5].
• "Private interest litigation" adds to dockets that already have huge backlogs.

• The balance lies in judicial restraint: the court should push the executive to act, not take its place.

• Reforms that filter abuse without shutting out the poor:

• Screen petitioners' credentials and require a declaration of no personal interest [3].
• Impose exemplary costs on frivolous petitions (Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010).
• Publish clear criteria for admitting suo motu matters and letter-petitions.
• Set time limits on continuing monitoring orders.
• Strengthen legal aid, so the poor depend less on PIL "proxies".

Related concepts

• Judicial activism
• Locus standi
• Hussainara Khatoon case
• Sunil Batra case
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha case
• Epistolary jurisdiction
• Suo motu cognizance
• Amicus curiae

Read more

• Judicial activism and the rise of PIL