Is it necessary to reconsider the jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

Why in the news ?

• The issue of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has recently been in the news because the Central Government has asked the Supreme Court to review its jurisdiction. 
• This issue was particularly raised during the hearing of the Sabarimala Reference Case, where the government argued that PIL litigation has deviated from its original purpose and is being transformed into "agenda-driven litigation."
• The government and some other parties argue that PIL, once an effective tool for securing justice for marginalized people, is now being used in many cases to advance political, ideological, or propagandistic interests. 
• This is unnecessarily burdening the judiciary and often forcing courts to intervene in complex policy-making issues for which they are not environmentally appropriate.
• Furthermore, the courts' instances of incomplete or hastily filed petitions, the rise in "proxy PILs" and "public interest litigation" have also raised concerns. This not only wastes judicial time but also impacts the hearing of serious cases involving genuine public interest.

The Limits of Judicial Intervention and the Question of Environmental Capacity

• Through public interest litigation, courts have often challenged executive inaction and brought about change in governance. But it is equally important that courts recognize their environmental limitations.
• The judiciary is not designed for policymaking or administrative functions.
• The recent refusal of the Supreme Court to direct a law on hate speech reflects that the Court is aware of the limits of its jurisdiction.
• Therefore, judicial intervention through PILs is justified only if it is limited to protecting fundamental rights and does not interfere in every aspect of governance.
  

Neglect of Stakeholders

• A major problem with PILs has been that courts often reach decisions without hearing the affected parties.
• This was clearly evident in the slum demolition cases in Delhi, where petitions were filed by residential welfare associations, but slum dwellers were not made parties.
• Similarly, broad court orders in environmental matters often ignored the interests of local communities.
• This makes it clear that it is crucial to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in PILs, otherwise judicial intervention may create imbalance rather than social justice.

The Rise of 'Agenda-Driven' and 'Fake' PILs

• The problem of misuse of PILs has become increasingly apparent in recent years.
• Many petitions are filed for personal, political, or publicity-driven purposes, which has come to be known as "Publicity Interest Litigation."
• Furthermore, in some cases, incomplete and hasty petitions are filed solely to stall genuine petitions.
• This wastes the judiciary's time and resources, and the real issues are left behind.

The Role of the Amicus Curiae: Impartial Assistance or Over-Activism?

• The role of the amicus curiae (counsel counsel to the court) is crucial in public interest litigation, but this role can sometimes become controversial.
• In cases such as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995/1996), the amicus actively represented the petitioner, raising questions about impartiality.
• Therefore, it is necessary to establish clear guidelines for the role of the amicus curiae, so that they only assist the court and not represent any particular party.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) :-

• Public interest litigation is an innovative concept in the Indian judiciary that sought to take justice beyond the confines of formality and make it accessible to the general public.
• In the 1970s, when courts realized that the traditional justice system was inaccessible to the poor, workers, and marginalized groups, PIL emerged as a solution.
• It not only democratized access to justice but also ensured state accountability.

Origins and Development: From American Idea to Indian Innovation

• The concept of public interest litigation is believed to have its origins in American jurisprudence, but it took on a distinct and comprehensive form in India.
• ​​In the late 1970s and 1980s, progressive judges like Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P. N. Bhagwati actively developed it.
• These judges freed justice from formalities, ensuring that the judiciary became a vehicle for social justice rather than merely a dispute-resolving institution. During this period, the Public Interest Litigation Act (PIL) became a key pillar of Indian judicial activism.
  

Expansion of Locus Standi :

• A key basis for the success of PILs was the relaxation of the rules of locus standi, established by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979).
• Before the advent of PILs, courts followed a strict rule of "locus standi," which required only a person whose rights were directly affected to file a petition.
• PILs relaxed this principle and allowed third parties to file petitions.
• This change made the judicial process more inclusive and made it possible to provide justice to those previously denied justice.

Constitutional Basis: The Statutory Strength of PILs

(A) Article 32: The Supreme Means of Protecting Fundamental Rights

• Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which B. R. Ambedkar called "the heart and soul of the Constitution," gives citizens the right to enforce their fundamental rights directly by approaching the Supreme Court.
• Through PIL, the scope of this right has expanded to include individuals who cannot approach the court themselves.

(B) Article 39A: Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid

• Article 39A, included in the Directive Principles of State Policy, directs the State to ensure that no person is deprived of justice for economic or social reasons.
• The moral and philosophical foundation of PIL derives from this provision, making it a powerful instrument of social justice.

(C) Article 226: Extensive Powers of High Courts

• Under Article 226, High Courts have the power to issue writs, allowing them to intervene through PILs on administrative failures, environmental issues, and regional problems.
• This provision makes PIL decentralized and more accessible.

Supreme Court Guidelines: Controlling Abuse

(a) Balwant Singh Chaufal Guidelines (2010)

• In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines to prevent misuse of PILs.
• These were intended to ensure that only cases involving genuine public interest are given priority.
• These include measures such as examining the petitioner's credibility, verifying facts, the absence of personal or political interests, and penalizing frivolous petitions.

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 2013

• These rules require the petitioner to provide details of his or her interests, income, occupation, and previously filed petitions.
• The objective is to bring transparency to the judicial process and prevent fraudulent or motivated petitions at the initial stage.
  

Importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Public interest litigation is an important pillar of social justice, helping to secure justice for the weak and disadvantaged.
• It is an effective means of protecting the rights of bonded laborers, undertrials, women, children, and other vulnerable groups.
• PIL is a means of obtaining justice for those who cannot approach the court themselves due to poverty, illiteracy, or lack of resources.
• It has profoundly influenced Indian jurisprudence and evolved it to suit social needs.
• The "Absolute Liability Principle" was developed in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986).
• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) focused on rehabilitation and human rights.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) established guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace.

The first landmark PIL case :

• Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) is considered India's first major public interest litigation.
• This case exposed the inhumane conditions in prisons and ensured the release of thousands of undertrials. It also established the "right to a speedy trial" as a fundamental right, laying the foundation for the development of PIL.

Measures to strengthen PIL

• Courts should strictly adhere to the Balwant Singh Chauphal guidelines so that only cases involving genuine public interest are accepted.
• Abuse of publicity-motivated or proxy petitions should be punished with heavy penalties and a ban on future petitions.
• PIL cells or screening committees should be established in the Supreme Court and High Courts to conduct preliminary scrutiny of petitions.
• Non-serious cases should be screened and rejected at the initial stage.
• Special benches should be constituted for complex subjects such as environment, health, and education.
• The use of specialist benches such as the Green Bench can be increased in some cases to enhance efficiency and expertise.
• A clear legal framework or dedicated legislation should be enacted to clarify the scope of PILs.