It is a well known saying that the welfare of people is the welfare of god and the PIL which stands for “PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION” was also conceptualized for the welfare of the general public who were not in a position to represent themselves. The concept of PIL was borrowed from the American jurisprudence where it was created to provide legal representation to unrepresented groups. So PIL, or public interest litigation, can be broadly characterised as litigation in the interest of that amorphous entity known as the general public. Who are not capable of knocking the doors of the court for seeking justice, whatsoever the reason be. Before the emergence of PILs, only the aggrieved party had the Locus standi and had to personally knock on the doors of justice to seek redressal for their grievance, and no one else could do so as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved party and due to this, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India were not benefiting a major chunk of the population because many were not even aware of what their rights are so how can they bring claims for their infringements.
HISTORY OF PIL IN INDIA
Political and social situations changed a lot after the emergency, which was declared by the then PM which followed lawlessness, custodial violence and many other forms of infringement of even basic rights of the citizens and this started drawing the attention of lawyers, judges, and various social activists and it is said that the seeds of PIL were sown by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1975 in the case of Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai and Soon after, Justice Bhagwati’s efforts made an impact and the concept of public interest litigation (PIL) which arose and grew to a significant extent and for this reason, he is renowned and lauded for his contribution, further in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, Krishna Iyer J. outlined the arguments for liberalising the Locus Standi rule. The first PIL was filed( Hussainara Khatoon v. the State of Bihar) by a news reporter based on the reports published in a newspaper and the report was about the plight of undertrial prisoners in the state of Bihar and this PIL emerged as a landmark judgement and The right to free, fair and speedy justice arose as a key fundamental right. Subsequently in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, Justice P.N. Bhagawati held that “any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court. Justice Bhagwati went to great lengths to ensure that the notion of PILs was well-defined. He didn’t care about procedural fine points, and he even considered ordinary letters from public-spirited citizens as writ petitions. Further In Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors., the Supreme Court held that “in an appropriate case, where the petitioner may have moved a court in her private interest and for the redressal of a personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it as a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interstate context, the court may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.”. In the Asiad Workers judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting less than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through the labour commissioner and lower courts. In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary evidence, either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially or economically, courts have appointed commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the bench. These cases are just an overview of how the supreme court tried to enhance the accessibility of justice to everyone.
USE OF PIL IN PRESENT SCENARIO
No doubt the PILs had played a key role in strengthening the rule of law of the country and It ensured that everyone has access to justice. Anyone capable of doing so can file petitions on behalf of others who are unable or do not have the resources to do so. But in recent times it has been observed that certain PILs are filed just to fulfil political as well as personal vendetta. According to Supreme Court’s bench led by Justice NV Ramana and including Justices SK Kaul and BR Gavai the bench observed that the essence of the PIL has been forgotten since lawyers continue to file petitions on “what they feel is possible.” The bench also observed that “This is not public interest litigation.”
The concept of PILs has been abused by a group of self-proclaimed activists-turned-lawyers, who want to gain influence over the elected governments and also to the opposition just to fulfil their vested interests. Let’s recall the remarks made by Justice Chandrachud on Prashant Bhushan in the Loya case PIL, observed “It is a travesty of justice for the resources of the legal system to be consumed by an avalanche of misdirected petitions purportedly filed in the public interest which, upon due scrutiny, are found to promote a personal, business or political agenda. This has spawned an industry of vested interests in litigation,”, the court further went on to say that “Business rivalries have to be resolved in a competitive market for goods and services. Political rivalries have to be resolved in the great hall of democracy when the electorate votes its representatives in and out of office. Courts resolve disputes about legal rights and entitlements. Courts protect the rule of law,” There are many other cases where the Courts made strong observations and rejected the PILs lets have a quick look on some of them; (i) A PIL was filed to construct the great wall of India along the entire border by Vaishya Samaj Association, it was dismissed by the court, the courts have many times asked the litigants for paying hefty amount of money for filing frivolous PILs (ii) In the year 2017 SC imposed a hefty fine of Rs. 25 lakhs on an organization named Suraz India Trust, and its chairman Rajiv Daiya for “wasting” judicial time by filing over five dozen frivolous PILs (iii) In 2017 a PIL was filed by an advocate on whom the supreme court slapped a hefty fine for filing frivolous PIL and for wasting precious time of the judiciary (iv) The Delhi HC dismissed the plea which was filed to sought directions from the court to suspend all construction related works of Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment Project, but the bench headed by Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the petition and called the PIL as “MOTIVATED” and “NOT A GENUINE PIL”, not only this the bench also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners.
As it is said that every right comes with a responsibility, same is with the filing of PILs, yes you do have a right to file a PIL for the welfare of the public but this doesn’t give you a license of misappropriating the whole idea behind the introduction of PILs. Already around 60,000 cases are pending in Supreme Court. And around 42 lakh cases are pending in different High Courts of India and some people come to court to fulfil their POLITICAL INTEREST in the form of PILs as said by Justice Arun Mishra that “whether the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had acquired a new meaning as the “Political Interest Litigation”, he also made a remark that if “Politically sponsored cases are filed in the guise of a PIL and if such petitions are not disposed of in the petitioners’ favour, the courts are slammed and the date of such a judgment is dubbed as a ‘black day for the judiciary”.
The idea of PIL should not be disregarded just because for reason that it had been filed by a person of any political, corporate or personal connectivity but if any PIL is found to be frivolous in nature then the courts should slap hefty fines along with some sanctions which will act as a deterrent in the future and if not done so the efforts of Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati, who are accredited for opening the door of justice for all, will surely go in vain.