Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Before getting into the topic of PIL let us know what is public interest?
Public Interest means “any act done for the benefit of public at large in public interest.” Public Interest
Litigation means “a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or
general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest
by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” A PIL can be filed for various matters, some of
which are pollution, terrorism, road safety, or any such matters which are concerned with public at
large.
The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence. The seed
of PIL was sown by Justice Krishna Iyer through this landmark judgement in the year 1976; Mumbai
Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others. Soon thereafter, with the efforts of Justice
Bhagwati, the concept of PIL has evolved and developed to a great extent. PIL has achieved a place of
great importance in our legal system.
Writs are filed by individuals or institutions for their own benefit and not for public interest, whereas
PILs are filed for a larger good of public.
Earlier it was only a person whose interest was directly affected along with others, whereby his
fundamental right is affected used to file such litigation. A new era of the PIL movement was heralded
by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. In this case it was held that any
member of the public or social action group acting bonafide can invoke the PIL through Writ
Jurisdiction. Any public spirited NGO can also file to espouse a public cause for redressal of public
injury. Person or NGO can argue in person or appoint an advocate to fight the case. the Supreme
Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, laid down four distinct
principles of PIL in India. These principles are as follows:
a petition need not be filed by the person whose own legal rights are at issue and can be
brought before the court by any public-spirited citizen,
the person who is filing the petition need not have personal knowledge of the case details,
and he can support his contentions by referring to excerpts like those of newspaper
articles,
both legal principles and relief can be used in the preliminary stage of the litigation, and
the scope of litigation can be expanded beyond what was stated in the original petition if
during the progress of the case facts indicate greater injustice
The registration of NGO with minimum seven members is compulsory for filing a PIL under it.
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal (Vijay Shankar Panday Vs. Union of India & Another )
filed by an IAS officer Mr.Vijay Shankar Pandey against Disciplinary Proceedings taken against him by
the Government for filing a PIL which ultimately resulted in the formation of SIT in the Black money
Case (Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 1).
“A Writ Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 titled “Julio F. Ribero and others vs. Govt. of India including
Mr.Pandey, came to be filed under the name and style of India Rejuvination Initiative, a non-
Government Organisation (NGO). The said Writ Petition along with another culminated in a
judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Jethmalani & Others v. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC.
All the charges against Mr.Pndey are in connection with the filing of the said Writ Petition on the
ground that the conduct is violative of the various CONDUCT Rules.
Allowing the Appeal Justice Chelameswar held that “We are at a loss to comprehend how the
filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging
its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to
maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member
of the service”. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is wholly untenable. The
purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass
the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the
Government of India. The action of the respondents is consistent with their conduct clearly recorded
in (2011) 8 SCC 1[6]. The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of
blackmoney by whatever means fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing
but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who
might dare in future to expose any mal-administration. The fact remains, that this Court
eventually agreed with the substance of the complaint pleaded in Writ Petition No.37 of 2010 and
connected matters; and directed an independent inquiry into the issue of black money”.
The Supreme Court has issued a set of PIL guidelines according to which the following matters will not
be allowed as PILs:
Landlord-tenant matters
Service matters
Matters pertaining to pension and gratuity
Complaints against Central and State government departments and Local Bodies except those
relating to items 1 to 10 mentioned in the list of guidelines
Admission to medical and other educational institutions
Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Court or subordinate courts
In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife, children and parents, the
petitioners may be asked to file a Petition under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. Or a Suit in the Court of
competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest Legal Aid Committee for
legal aid and advice.
workplace
4. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India Civic atrocities for allowing untreated
5. Parmanand Katara Vs. Union of India Effort to save the person is top priority
citizens .
unorganised sector
India conditions
Stringent laws on handling of hazardous
8. M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Oleum substances and procedure to set up and
Gas leak Case) run industry with minimal risk to humans
, animals etc.
Scheduled areas
struck down
Importance.
P. Guptha vs. Union of India
20. Locus Standi of lawyers to file a writ