Public Interest Litigation in India: PIL Explained with Case Laws

[music] Hello everyone. So now let's look at the last part of week eight where I'll be taking you through public interest litigation. Now public interest litigation or what we call PIL in India is a legal

mechanism allowing any citizen to file a case in a high court under article 226 or the supreme court under article 32 of the Indian constitution to protect public interest social justice or the rights of disadvantaged groups.

Now PIL was introduced in the late 1970s and it relaxed the traditional rule of locust standai enabling the courts to act on the behalf of the marginalized. The key aspects of PIL in India. The purpose to enforce public interest,

enforce fundamental rights and ensure government accountability regarding issues like environmental pollution, human rights and social welfare. Now whom are PILs filed against? the state or the central governments, municipal authorities and sometimes private parties if they violate public interests.

Let's now look at how do we file the PIL. Now a PIL can be filed by any publicspirited individual or organization not necessarily the agreved party by submitting a petition in the court with supporting evidence.

Let's now look at what is the significance of PILS. Now PILS have led to landmark judgments on various issues particularly in the field of environmental protection in the field of prisoner rights and also gender justice.

Now let's look at the key constitutional provisions with regards to public interest litigation. Now in the Supreme Court a PIL is filed under article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights. In the high courts public interest litigations are filed under article 226

for the enforcement of both fundamental and other legal rights. Now they can also be filed in magistrate courts particularly in specific cases of public nuisance. Petitions can be filed under section 133 of the criminal procedure court.

Let me now take you through the historical development. The origin of the PIL is that it was actually and you'll be really surprised to know that inspired by American Jewish prudence. It took root in India during the late 1970s and the 1980s. The pioneers here were justice P and Bhagwati and Justice VR Krishna Ayar who

were instrumental in the evolution of PILS. The first landmark case was the Husseinara cartoon versus the state of Bihar. The 1979 PIL which led to the release of nearly 40,000 undertrial prisoners and the establishment of the right to a speedy trial.

This quote unquote the mother of PILS was the Capella Hingorani who earned this title for her role in the Hussein Nara Katun case. Now let's get into the significance and the features. Epistolary jurisdiction. The court can treat a simple letter or a postcard addressed to the chief justice as a formal writvers.

A PIL is a collaborative effort between the petitioner, the state and the court to secure social justice. So moto cognissance the court can initiate a PIL on its own based on news reports or also independent observations.

Commissioners courts can often appoint experts or commissions just to investigate facts in complex public interest litigation cases. Let's now look at certain landmark PIL cases. First let's see Vishaka versus

state of Rajasthan of 1997 which led to the guidelines preventing sexual harassment at workplace. The very famous Vishaka guidelines. Now the key legal principles in this PIL was that it upheld first constitutional rights. The court held that sexual harassment is a

clear violation of fundamental rights especially article 14 and 15 right to equality and non-discrimination. Article 19 1G, right to practice any profession or carry out any occupation. And Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live with dignity.

Secondly, judicial activism. Now in the absence of domestic legislation, the court filled the quote unquote legislative vacuum by formulating binding guidelines. The court relied on international conventions, particularly the CEDO, the convention on the elimination of all forms of

discrimination against women to interpret Indian constitutional guarantees. The second case we must look at is MC META versus Union of India 1987. Widely known as the Olium Gas league case. Now this is actually the foundation of Indian environmental law

because it introduced the revolutionary principle of absolute liability. In this PIL, the court departed from the 19th century English rule of quote unquote strict liability from Rylands versus Fletcher, which allowed for various defenses like quote unquote act

of God. Now under absolute liability, an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous activity is strictly and absolutely liable for any harm caused with no exceptions allowed. The court here very interestingly ruled that compensation must be correlated to the magnitude

and to the financial capacity of the enterprise. A larger more prosperous company must pay higher compensation to ensure a quote unquote deterrent effect. The judgment in fact expanded the right to life to include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.

The court reaffirmed its power to award compensation under article 32 as a remedial measure for the gross violation of fundamental rights. Here let's look at our third case study. Banda Mti Morcha versus Union of India of 1984.

This case, this PIL particularly focused on the identification and the release of bonded laborers. The court ruled that article 21, the right to life, includes the right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. And article 23 violations, forced labor, even if paid, was held to violate the

very important constitutional prohibition against beggar and other forms of forced labor. This PIL addressed the burden of proof because through it the court shifted the burden of proof stating that if a laborer is found to be providing forced labor the court will presume that they

are a bonded laborer unless the employer proves otherwise. This PIL addressed relaxation of locust standai because herein the court reaffirmed that any publicspirited individual or group can move the court on behalf of those who due to either

poverty or disability cannot approach the court themselves. And finally let's look at permanent Qatara versus Union of India 1989. Now this is the landmark judgment.

This judgment in the PIL established that the preservation of human life is of paramount importance superseding all procedural formalities in any kind of medical emergencies. In this PIL the court ruled that the right to life is sacrosanked.

Every doctor, whether at a government hospital or otherwise, has a professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. It looked at no procedural barriers. The court held here that a doctor cannot

delay treatment by waiting for police arrival or the completion of legal formalities. The quote unquote procedural law should not be allowed to operate as a quote unquote death trap for the patient. It also addressed professional ethics because this PIL judgment highlighted the code of medical ethics then under

the medical council of India because this PIL judgment stated that it is a physician's duty to provide emergency care and this duty is absolute and this case is the reason why hospitals today cannot refuse first aid or stabilization to accident victims.

So that's all that we have in week eight. [music]