0

INDEX

Sl. No. Contents Page.No.

I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INTEREST 2
LITIGATION
III. SCOPE OF PIL: 3-6
IV. OBJECTIVES OF PUBLIC INTEREST 6-8
LITIGATION
V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ORIGION 8-9
OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
VI. EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST 9-11
LITIGATION IN INDIA
VII. CHARACTERISTICS OF PIL 11-12
VIII. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND 12-14
JUDICIARY
IX. CONCLUSION 15
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY 16
 1

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF EVALUATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST

LITIGATION’S IN INDIA

I. INTRODUCTION
One of the overarching aims of law and legal systems has been to achieve justice in the
society and public interest litigation (PIL) has proved to be a useful tool in achieving this
objective. For example, PIL—in which the focus is not on vindicating private rights but
on matters of general public interest—extends the reach of judicial system to
disadvantaged sections of society. It also facilitates an effective realization of collective,
diffused rights for which individual litigation is neither practicable nor an efficient
method.
Nevertheless, PIL has generally received peripheral attention in debates on civil
justice reforms around the world.1This is not to suggest that the evolution of PIL in
various jurisdictions has missed the attention of scholars.
To continue this tradition, this article aims to critically examine the evolution and
development of PIL in Indian Judicial System. The main objective of this examination is
to highlight the dark side of PIL so that other jurisdictions could learn useful lessons
from the Indian experience. The choice of India—a democracy of over 1 billion people
governed by a common law system, rule of law and independent judiciary—for learning
lessons in the area of PIL is an obvious one given the contribution of India to the PIL
jurisprudence.

Although this article aims to highlight the dark side of PIL, it will not be fair if the
positive contributions of PIL are not acknowledged. After all, the dark side could only be
discussed in the backdrop of a bright side. The section on Positive contributions,
therefore, briefly highlights the positive contributions that the PIL project has made
within and outside India. The dark side then offers critical insights into various aspects of
PIL, which together constitute its dark side. Here again, before mapping these facets of
the dark side, I will take readers to a quick tour of some recent PIL cases in India. The
conclusion will sum up the discussion and also throw some light on how other
jurisdictions could benefit from the Indian PIL experience.

1
See, for example, the attention that PIL has received in recent civil justice reforms in the UK, India and
Hong Kong.
 2

II. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

The phrase ‘Public interest Litigation’ relates to the very term ‘Public Interest’.
Generally the litigation by someone for the interest of the public is the Public Interest
Litigation. It does not mean that mere a stranger can move to court for a Public Interest
litigation and that’s why it is a carving need to define ‘Public Interest’.

In Stround’s Judicial Dictionary2, ‘Public Interest’ is defined as, ‘a matter of public or

general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love
of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a
pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.’

Much wider definition has been given by the American Bar Association. According to
this definition, Public Interest Law Means;

“Legal services provide without fee or a substantially reduced fee which falls into one or
more of the following areas:
1) Property Law;
2) Civil Rights Law;
3) Public Rights Law;
4) Charitable Organization Representation;
5) Administration of Justice.”3

In fact, a PIL is generally instituted for the enforcement of the Constitutional and
Legal Rights of the poor and Excluded groups as well as ensuring accountability of
concerned government and public authorities towards issues of public importance.
Persistent efforts by the NGOs and social action groups through PIL has, in many
occasions, prompted the High Court Division to issue directives and orders that in turn
addressed the socio-economic concerns of the poor and the marginalized groups.

2
Vol. 4, 4th Edition.
3
Mamata Rao, Public Interest Litigation, Legal Aid and Lok Adalats, 2nd Edition, Eastern Book
Company, p.10.
 3

III. SCOPE OF PIL:

The traditional rule of locus standi insists that judicial redress is available only to
a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal right. The rule
postulates the competency of a person to maintain a suit or application. According to this
rule, a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of violation of his legal
right, actual or threatened, can bring an action for judicial redress and third party cannot
be permitted to have access to the Court for the purpose of seeking redress on behalf of
the person injured. In the strict sense, the rule indicates that to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32, the petitioner must show
infringement, actual or threatened of fundamental right available to him. In other words
the petitioner cannot be permitted to move the Supreme Court for the purpose of seeking
enforcement of fundamental right of the other person. But the Courts in India have
evolved few exceptions to this narrow and rigid rule of locus standi. This rule is relaxed
and modified by the Courts in India in the cases of writs like habeas corpus and quo
warranto.
The rule of locus standi was also diluted by the Supreme Court in the cases of new
branch of proceedings under Articles 32 and Article 226 known as public interest
litigation. This jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 32 is an important
and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The essence is the
fundamental rights may become meaningless without providing an effective remedy for
their enforcement. The proceedings of public interest litigation or social action litigation
attempts to provide an adequate and effective remedy for the enforcement of the
fundamental rights.
 4

At the beginning, the Supreme Court started to encourage the public spirited citizens
who are moving the Court for the purpose of vindicating the 4
rights of poor masses. In appropriate cases the Court started to direct the State to pay to
the petitioner costs of the petition. A petitioner need not incur expenses out of his own
pocket for consulting a lawyer and preparing a regular writ petition for enforcement of
the fundamental right of the poor and deprived sections of the community. It was well
settled that the public interest litigation could be initiated by means of letters and
telegrams addressed to the Court. The letter or telegram addressed to an individual
Justice of the Court cannot also be rejected merely on the ground that it is not addressed
to the Court. In other words a letter or telegram addressed by a public spirited citizen can
legitimately be regarded as an ‗appropriate proceeding‘ for the purposes of invoking
Article 32 of the Constitution. In addition to this a letter or telegram may be unsupported
by an affidavit because the Court found that the purpose of jurisdiction under Article 32
would be frustrated if the Court insists on an affidavit as a condition of entertaining the
letter as petition. The Court has liberalized the technical procedural laws, especially the
law relating to pleadings, applicable to public interest litigations. When a matter of grave
public importance is for consideration before the Court, every technicality in the
procedural law shall not be available as a defense. The Court may also appoint a
Commission or other body for the purpose of investigation of facts to reduce expenses of
the petitioner to collect evidence.
The Supreme Court of India, in Sunil Batra (II) v/s Delhi Administration5, had
accepted a letter written by Sunil Batra (an inmate of Tihar Prisons, near New Delhi)
complaining of inhuman torture in the jail.

4
AIR 1987 SC 191
5
1980 (3) SCC 488 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 777 : AIR 1980 SC 1579 : 1980 CriLJ 1099
In Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v/s State of U.P11, the court entertained a letter from two professors at the
University of Delhi seeking enforcement of the 12
 5

constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who were living in inhuman
and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v/s State of Bihar6the court treated a
letter addressed to a judge of the court by the Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh,
Bihar as a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy v/s State of Assam and Others 7,
the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as
President of Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court alleging human-rights
violations of detainees booked under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, (TADA); it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.1415 Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for
justice. After the emergency era the high court reached out to the people, devising a
means for a person or a Non-Governmental Organisation to approach the court seeking
legal remedy in cases where the public interest is at stake. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and
Justice V/S R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges of this country to admit PIL‘s in
court16. Complexities and hardship faced by a common man in usual legal case is
eradicated in case of a PIL. There have been instances when letters and telegrams
addressed to the court have been taken up as PILs and heard.
In 1981 the case of Anil Yadav v/s State of Bihar, exposed the brutalities of the Police.
Newspaper reports revealed that about 33 accused had lost their eyesight due to pouring
of acid into their eyes by the police of Bihar.Through interim orders, Supreme Court
directed the State government to bring the blinded men to Delhi for medical treatment. It
also ordered speedy prosecution of the guilty policemen. The court also provided right
to free legal aid as a fundamental right to every accused. Anil Yadav signaled the growth
of social activism and investigative litigation.

6
1982 (2) SCC 583 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 511 : AIR 1983 SC 339

7
1995 KHC 486 : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74 : 1995 (3) SCC 743 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600 : AIR 1996 SC 2193
 6

The Supreme Court has always considered the probability of preferential

consideration of the poor and the disadvantaged than the rich, the businessmen and the
industrialists taking into account the Indian scenario. The weaker sections of Indian
society have had no access to justice on account of their poverty, ignorance and
illiteracy. The strategy of public interest litigation has been evolved by the Supreme
Court with a view to bring justice within the easy reach of the ‗have not‘ sections of the
community. The Supreme Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India8
considered that the public interest litigation is a challenge and an opportunity to the
government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful for the down-trodden
sections of the community. The Supreme Court recently in Guruvayur Devaswom
Managing Committee v/s C.K. Rajan9 summarized the principles in regard to the
nature and scope of the public interest litigation under Article 32 and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In this case, Shri C.K. Rajan addressed a letter dated 3.2.1993 to
one of the Hon‘ble Judges of the High Court of Kerala and thereby brought to his notice
purported serious irregularities, corrupt practices, mal-administration and
mismanagement prevailing in the temple. He was called by the High Court and the
Registrar recorded his statement on 11.2.1993. The said letter was treated as an original
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in its order dated
12.2.1993 highlighted 23 aspects of the matter which had been brought to its notice and
appointed one Shri S. Krishnan Unni, District Judge, Officiating as the Director of
Training, High Court of Kerala as the Commissioner
to make a general enquiry and in particular make a study on the various aspects
highlighted in the said complaint. The court held that pro bono publico constituted a
significant state in the present day judicial system. They, however, provided the dockets
with much greater responsibility for rendering the concept of justice available to the
disadvantaged sections of the society. Public interest litigation has come to stay and its
necessity cannot be overemphasized. The courts evolved a jurisprudence of compassion.
Procedural propriety was to move over giving place to substantive concerns of the
deprivation of rights. The rule of locus standi was thus diluted. The Court in place of
disinterested and dispassionate adjudicator became active participant in the dispensation
of justice.

8
Supra 8.
9
AIR 2003 SC 312. 14
 7

The Supreme Court has expanded the wings of public interest litigation in the due
course of time. The instrument of public interest litigation has served to protect the
human rights of poor and disadvantaged masses. It has covered several areas of
litigations. The Supreme Court has used this jurisdiction for prohibition of exploitation
of workmen, enforcing the rights of children employees and release of bonded labourers.
It was used for the eradication of the child prostitution, devadasi system, rescue and
rehabilitation, through various welfare measures, of prostitutes and their children. The
Court has used the instrument of public interest litigation for seeking relief against mala
fide acts of the public servant in the discharge of his functions as public servant,
protection of the environment and the people‘s right to natural resources, release of
under trials on bail and to direct the lower judiciary promoting speedy trial, seeking
release of children below 16 years detained in jails, to direct the CBI to conduct
investigation as to corruption, and also for the protection of independence of the
judiciary. The public interest litigation was also used by the Court to award monetary
compensation in appropriate cases of violations of right to life and personal liberties. The
award of compensation in public interest litigation
proceeding is an admirable and pleasant idea of providing justice to the poor and
disabled victims of violations of right to life and personal liberties. The public interest
litigation has opened a new dimension of providing justice and has given new hope to the
justice-starved millions of Indians. The Supreme Court of India has made the significant
use of its public interest litigation jurisdiction.
 8

IV. OBJECTIVES OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

According to Justice Krishna Iyer, Public Interest Litigation is a process of
obtaining justice for the people, of voicing people's grievances through the legal process.
The aim of PIL is to give to the common people of this country, access to the courts so as
to seek legal redress.
The general objectives of public interest litigation can be summarised as follows: 21
Increasing respect for the law
 Restoring confidence in the legal system and the justice delivery system

 Redress and compensation for victims and survivors

 Monitoring human rights violations and trends

 Documentation of human rights violations (the victims, the violation and the
offender)

 Fighting lawlessness

 Strengthening the Constitution of India

 Fighting against impunity which is fuelling lawlessness and the breakdown of the rule
of law

 Introducing personal accountability to State on behalf of actors like policeman, war

veterans, soldiers, intelligence officers and other public officials

 Introducing institutional and collective accountability to police, army, State organs

and Ministries

 Pursuing human rights violators or representative state organs to justice

 Creating a basis for international litigation or lobbying or advocacy by exhausting

domestic remedies

The expected outcomes of public interest litigation in general can be summarised as

follows:-
 Restoration of and respect for the rule of law

 Restoration of public confidence in the justice delivery system

 9

 Restoration of professionalism in and de-politicisation of the police force and other

state organs

 Accountability in the public sector

 Improvement of the human rights situation in India

The concept of ‗Public Interest Litigation‘ is one of the most important innovations in
the Indian judicial process. It emerged in the late seventies of the twentieth century in
response to the need to make judicial process more accessible to poor, downtrodden,
socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society. It is primarily the
judges of the higher judiciary who have innovated upon the concept of public interest
litigation through judicial activism while exercising the jurisdiction for dispensing justice
to the poor and downtrodden.
 10

V. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ORIGION OF PUBLIC

INTEREST LITIGATION

The initial inspiration for PIL came from the American concept of Public Interest
Litigation and the class actions of the 1960’s. In U.S.A. it is called the ‘Public Interest
Law’ whereas in the Indian Subcontinent it is known as ‘Public Interest Litigation’. In
fact, it is the U.S.A., the real pioneer in the path of PIL which influenced some PIL
activist of some countries of the world to work for PIL in 1960s and 70s. Commentators
frequently date the emergence of Public Law Litigation (in USA Public Interest
Litigation is named as Public Law Litigation) in the U.S.A. to the celebrated campaign
that resulted in the decision in Brown Vs. Board of Education, 10 in which U.S. Supreme
Court declared unconstitutional a stste’s segregation of public school students by race.
Brown includes many procedural features since associated with Public Law Litigation:
the defendant was a public institution; the claimants comprised a self-constituted group
with membership that changed over time; relief was prospective, seeking to reform
future action by government agents; and the judge played a leadership role
complemented by the parties effort at negotiation. The literature distinguishes this form
of litigation from the classical model of adjudication, which is conceptualized as a
private, bipolar dispute marked by individual participation and the imposition of
retrospective relief involving a tight fit between right and remedy.11

Brown provided inspiration to a generation of lawyers who saw law as a source

of liberation as well as transformation for marginalized groups. Courts, mostly federal
but state as well, became involved in a broad range of social issues, including voting and
apportionment, contraception and abortion, employment and housing discrimination,
environmental regulation, and prison conditions. Prison reform litigation illustrates the
extent of the judiciary’s involvement in Public Law cases: after years of taking a “hands
off” approach to prison conditions, courts imposed remedial decrees in 48 of the nation’s
53 jurisdictions (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Island).12

VI. EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA

10
Brown Vs. Board of Education,347 U.S. 483 (1954)
11
Fuller, The Forms and Limits of Adjudication, 92 HARV. L. REV. 353 (1978).
12
Feely & Rubin, Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s
Prisons (1998).
 11

It should be noted at outset that PIL, at least as it had developed in India, is

different from class action or group litigation. Whereas the latter is driven primarily by
efficiency consideration, the PIL is concerned at providing access to justice to all societal
constituents. PIL in India has been a part of the constitutional litigation and not civil
litigation. Therefore, in order to appreciate the evolution of PIL in India, it is desirable to
have a basic understanding of the constitutional framework and the Indian Judiciary.

After gaining independence from the British rule on August 15, 1947, the people
of India adopted a Constitution in November 1949 with the hope to establish a
“sovereign socialist secular democratic republic”. Among others, the Constitution aims
to secure to all its citizens justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship) and equality(of status and of opportunity). 13 These
aims were not merely aspirational because the founding fathers wanted to achieve a
social revolution through the Constitution. The main tool employed to achieve such
social change were the provisions on Fundamental Rights (FRs) and the Directive
Principles of State Policy (DPs). Which Austin Described as the “conscience of the
Constitution”.14 In order to ensure that FRs did not remain empty declarations, the
founding fathers made various provisions in the Constitution to establish an independent
judiciary. As we will see below, provisions related to FRs, DPs and independent
judiciary together provided a firm constitutional foundation to the evolution of PIL in
India.

Part III of the Constitution lays down various FRs and also specifies grounds for
limiting these rights. As a right without a remedy does not have much substance, 15 the
remedy to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of any of the Pt III
rights has also been made a FR. The holder of the FRs cannot waive them. Nor can the
FRs be curtailed by an amendment of the Constitution if such curtailment is against the
basic structure of the Constitution.

Some of the Some of the FRs are available only to citizens20 while others are
13
Constitution of India 1950 Preamble.

14
Austin, Comerstone of a Nation, p. 50
15
M.P. Jain, The Supreme Court and Fundamental Rights in S.K. Verma and Kusum (eds), Fifty Years of
the Supreme Court of India—Its Grasp and Reach (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.1, 76.
 12

available to citizens as well as non-citizens, including juristic persons. Notably, some of

the FRs are expressly conferred on groups of people or community. Not all FRs are
guaranteed specifically against the state and some of them are expressly guaranteed
against non-state bodies. Even the state is liberally defined in art.12 of the Constitution
to include,the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the
legislature of each of the states and all local or other authorities within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India.

The expression other authorities has been expansively interpreted, and any
agency or instrumentality of the state will fall within its ambit.
The DPs find a place in Pt IV of the Constitution. Although the DPs are not justiciable,
they are,nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the
duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws.

After initial deviation, the Supreme Court accepted that FRs are not superior to DPs on
Account of the latter being non-justiciable: rater FRs and DPs are complementary and
the former are a means to achieve the goals indicated in the latter. The issue was put
beyond any controversy in Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India where the Court held that
the, harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles is an
essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution.Since then the judiciary has
employed DPs to derive the contents of various FRs.16

The founding fathers envisaged the judiciary as a bastion of rights and justice. An
independent judiciary armed with the power of judicial review was the constitutional
device chosen to achieve this objective. The power to enforce the FRs was conferred on
both the Supreme Court and the High Courts —the courts that have entertained all the
PIL cases. The judiciary can test not only the validity of laws and executive actions but
also of constitutional amendments. It has the final say on the interpretation of the
Constitution and its orders, supported with the power to punish for contempt, can reach
everyone throughout the territory of the country. Since its inception, the Supreme Court
has delivered judgments of far-reaching importance involving not only adjudication of
disputes but also determination of public policies and establishment of rule of law and

16
See the cases cited below in fnn.35–49. See also Jain, The Supreme Court and Fundamental Rights in
Verma and Kusum (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India, pp.65–76.
 13

constitutionalism.17

VII. CHARACTERISTICS OF PIL

Public interest Litigation is a mechanism which aims at ensuring justice to all

citizens in a welfare State like ours. it seeks to assure  all the person that access to justice
is always available to them in case any of their fundamental rights violated . The main
features of PIL may briefly stated as follows -
   
1)Since the aim of PIL is to protect the interest of public at large , it is not necessary that
any right of the person filing a PIL Petition have been violated .

2) PIL writ is generally directed to protect the interest of those who are unable to move
the court for the protection of their rights due to poverty,  illiteracy or ignorance etc.

3) Any person or social service institution can file PIL writ for redressal of grievance of
public in general through he may not have any personal interest in the case or any his
right has   been adversely affected .

4) In a welfare state , PIL is an effective instrument to make the executive authorities

conscious about their public duties.

5) The Principle of liberalization of LOCUS STANDI rule applies only in case of Public
Interest Litigation writs. It has no application in case of other writs where the petitioner
has to prove that his personal legal right has been Violated.

6) In some cases the affected parties may address a letter directly to the supreme court
(in matter involves violation of some fundamental rights) or to High Court & the court if
satisfied that matter involves some public interest & deserves Court's attention,  may
treat the letter as a writ petition & and initiate the proceedings. This has been termed as
Epistolary jurisdiction of the court. At times, the higher class Court may even. Suo motu
initiate Judicial proceedings on the basis of some news item appearing in a news paper or
magazine provided they feel that some public interest is involved in the matter reported.
17
See, for an analysis of some of the landmark judgments delivered by the Apex Court during these years,
Gobind Das, The Supreme Court: An Overview in B.N. Kirpal et al. (eds), Supreme but not Infallible:
Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (New Delhi: OUP, 2000), pp.16–47.
 14

7) The Court need not adopt adversal procedure in PIL cases.

8) PIL has been criticized on the ground that it has resulted in no merit because PIL writs
are not admitted by the court unless they thoroughly scrutinized so as to ensure whether
any public interest is really involved in the case or the PIL writ has been filed with some
ulterior motive or purpose. For the purpose of preliminary scrutiny of PIL cases a public
interest litigation cell has been set up in  the Supreme Court &High courts.

VIII. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUDICIARY

 15

A very interesting PIL relating to first ever strike by the judges of Punjab and
Haryana high court on 19.4.2004led the Supreme Court to strikingly contradictory stand.
The PIL was filed on the same day praying that the judges should return to their duties
immediately in public interest. In Vikas Vashisht v. Punjab and Haryana High Court3 a
division bench of the Supreme Court consisting of R.C. Lahoti CJ and G.P. Mathur J
dismissed a PIL on July 2004 on the ground that what purported to have been filed by
way of PIL was nothing more than a publicity interest litigation as it was filed on the
basis of a newspaper report. It was argued in this case thatproceeding on en masse casual
leave by 25 judges amounted to “strike” by the judges. In September 2004 in S.S. Dahiya
v. Punjab and Haryana High Court18 a bench of S.N. Vairava and H.K. Sema JJ held that
the facts alleged by the petitioner were not based on newspaper report but on the
personal knowledge of the petitioner and it was genuine PIL and there was a need to lay
down guidelines pertaining to judicial propriety and hence this was a matter of public
interest. On 3.12.2004 the same bench dismissed the PIL as “infructous”. The reason: the
court realized only then that the judges had already resumed their duties on 20.4.2004,
just a day after they went on en masse casual leave to protest against the direction of
their Chief Justice to desist from accepting any freebies such as membership of a club. In
its one para order, the Vairava bench said that the court had issued notice on 26.4.2004
without noticing that the judges had already resumed their judicial work.

Before the judiciary a set of questions arises, such as; whether courts should be
involved in environmental, social, and economic matters at all: Are not the legislative
and executive branches better equipped to address these matters, and does not “judicial
activism,” precisely because the courts do not and cannot enforce many of their broad
directives in these areas, erode the legitimacy of the courts? Are not PIL cases draining
substantial resources from an already overburdened legal system in which ordinary civil
cases can languish in courts for many years? Since many PIL cases are patently frivolous
and many others never enforced, is not PIL a device for the judiciary to expand its own
powers and autonomy under the mantle of a popular social justice agenda? A separate set
of questions involves the beneficiaries of PIL: Do PIL cases continue to benefit the poor
and disadvantaged, or have not lifestyle issues and middle class concerns become
predominant in PIL cases? Are not judges manifestly less disposed to the interests of the
poor and marginalized than they were two decades ago, during the “heroic” years when
18
S.S. Dahiya v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2004(8) SCALE 235
 16

PIL originated?

These queries regarding PIL are fundamentally normative claims, and are based
on principled understandings of the role of judges and courts in India’s democracy. At
the same time, the validity of some of them rests on facts, albeit complex ones. For
instance, the challenge related to separation of powers raises questions about judicial
capacity – critics charge that courts cannot monitor and supervise complex “polycentric
disputes”, whereas others respond that they can, or at least as well as parliaments can.
The relative effectiveness of judicial supervision, if observed accurately and at scale,
could help resolve this disagreement, at least for a subset of cases and in certain contexts.
Similarly, whether or not PIL cases still address the concerns of the poor, and whether
decisions are as supportive of their interests as in the past, are empirical questions. To
date, the debate over PIL has largely been abstract (with some exceptions, to be
described below). It has helped generate a set of normatively significant questions, but at
this stage of the research cycle, empirical work may be more pressing. This paper
contributes to that task by assessing PIL with empirical data.

The next section of this paper analyzes the argument that PIL constitutes a case
of judicial overreach. The contention that PIL weakens policy formulation and
implementation in the legislative and executive branches is typically “dressed up” as a
separation of powers concern, but a more apt framework involves an assessment of the
impact of PIL on sectoral governance, which is fundamentally an empirical matter, not a
doctrinal one. The following section describes the charge that PIL favors middle class
interests rather than the concerns of the poor and marginalized. That section than
presents estimates, based on original data taken from Supreme Court records an online
legal database, to assess that claim.
17
 18

IX. CONCLUSION
PIL has an important role to play in the civil justice system in that it affords a
ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, some of which might not even be
well-informed about their rights. Furthermore, it provides an avenue to enforce diffused
rights for which either it is difficult to identify an aggrieved person or where aggrieved
persons have no incentives to knock at the doors of the courts. PIL could also contribute
to good governance by keeping the government accountable. Last but not least, PIL
enables civil society to play an active role in spreading social awareness about human
rights, in providing voice to the marginalized sections of society, and in allowing their
participation in government decision making.

As I have tried to show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could
achieve all or many of these important policy objectives. However, the Indian PIL
experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a back-
door to enter the temple of justice to fulfill private interests, settle political scores or
simply to gain easy publicity. Courts should also not use PIL as a device to run the
country on a day-to-day basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and
legislature.

Also, a number of criticisms of PIL have been voiced in recent years, including
concerns related to separation of powers, judicial capacity, and inequality. While critics
have been persuasive when pointing to particular cases, the sheer number of cases, as
well as the variation in tendencies over time and among court benches, have made
reaching a general conclusion difficult. This paper has argued that complaints related to
separation of powers concerns are better understood as criticisms of the impact of
judicial interventions on sectoral governance, and that structured case studies of sectoral
governance are necessary to assess those criticisms. On the issue of inequality, this
paper contributes to an overall assessment by systematically examining the relative
magnitude, case composition, and geographical origins of, as well as legal
representation and the claimant’s social class in, PIL and Fundamental Rights cases that
reached the Indian Supreme Court.
 19

X. BIBLOGRAPHY

Websites referred
1. https://www.lawctopus.com

2. https://www.shodhaganga.com

3. https://www.bloombergquint.com