Law

Access to justice
Public Interest Litigation
Component - I (A) - Personal Details
Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) Ranbir Singh Vice Chancellor
National Law University
Delhi
Principal Co-Investigator Prof(Dr)G S Bajpai Registrar
National Law University
Delhi
Paper Coordinator Dr Bharti Yadav Assistant Professor
National Law University
Delhi
Content Writer/Author Dr.M.R.K.Prasad Associate Professor
V.M.Salgaocar College of
Law, Panaji, Goa

Bhakti C. Naik Assistant Professor

V.M.Salgaocar College of
Law, Panaji, Goa
Content Reviewer Prof B. B. Pande Visiting Professor
National Law University
Delhi

Component - I (B) Description of Module

Description of Module
Subject Name Law
Paper Name Access to Justice
Module Name/Title Public Interest Litigation
Pre-requisites Understanding the formal Access to justice system in
India and concept of Locus Standi, Basic knowledge
about fundamental rights and writ jurisdiction of
Supreme Court and High Court.
Objectives To understand the role of Public Interest Litigation in
promoting access to justice.
Keywords Public Interest Litigation, Group Rights, Locus Standi,
Social Action Litigation, Access to Justice
Component - II
MODULE VIII - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Structure
1. Introduction
2. Learning outcome
3. Meaning of Public Interest Litigation
4. Origin of Public Interest Litigation
4.1. USA
4.2 India
4.3 PIL in USA and SAL in India
5. Scope of Public Interest Litigation
6. Features of Public Interest Litigation
6.1 Liberalisation of rule of Locus Standi
6.2 Epistolary Jurisdiction
6.3 Non Adversarial nature
6.4 Appointment of Commissions
7. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation
8. Procedure to file a Public Interest Litigation
8.1 Drafting of the Petition
8.2 List of documents
8.3 Court Fees
9. Supreme Court Guidelines
10. Summary
 1. Introduction
The right to access the courts of justice is available to individuals who are aggrieved by the
action of others. It is only when you are the affected or aggrieved person you are able to
approach the court of law for redressal. This means that there is a mechanism to address the
violation of individual rights. But the peculiar socio-economic conditions that are unique to
India strictly following the rule of locus standi i.e., whose right is violated alone can approach
the court would result in restricting the access to judicial process. For example what happens
when an individual cannot afford to reach out to the courts? Does his right remain violated
forever or is there any other recourse in such situations? Thus, blindly following the rule of
locus standi would cause greater injustice. As a result, there is a need for creating new
principles and strategies to tackle those cases where the individual representation is either
inadequate or impeded due to social, political and economical constraints. Public Interest
Litigation is one of such initiative by the Indian judiciary to meet those situations. Public
Interest Litigation is a judicial doctrine that has tried not only to address the circumstances in
which a person is poor, ignorant, indigent or illiterate and cannot afford to handle the
litigation but also used in enforcing social rights. The justice delivery system is brought to his
doorsteps through Public Interest Litigation. The focus is shifted from individual rights to
group rights. Any public spirited person who has interest in pursuing the wrongs done to
others or a group of persons, can access the courts of justice and fight for the rights of the
disadvantaged and needy group of individuals.
2. Learning Outcomes
After reading this unit, the reader shall be able to:
1. Understand the Rule of Locus Standi and its relevance in seeking remedy in a court
of law.
2. Comprehend the reasons for liberalizing the rule of Locus Standi and acceptance of
Public Interest Litigation.
3. Expound the need for protection of group rights.
4. Learn the scope and aspects of Public Interest Litigation.
5. Explore the ways in which a Public Interest Litigation could be drafted and the
procedure to be followed upon.

3. Meaning of Public Interest Litigation

One of the objectives of Indian legal system is to deliver justice to all. Public Interest
Litigation is a tool used to achieve this goal in the society. Preamble to the Constitution of
India envisages Social, Economic and Political justice. In order to achieve this Preambular
Goal of Justice, the judicial activism has led to the birth of Public Interest Litigation.
Public Interest Litigation is a court proceeding filed by any public spirited person to voice out
the interest of the general public. In this proceeding, the person fighting the litigation may not
himself be the aggrieved person. The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is coined by use of two
terms, ‘Public Interest’ and ‘Litigation’.
The expression ‘Public Interest’ means an act beneficial to the general public. It means an
action necessarily taken for public purpose. However, requirements of public interest may
vary from case to case.
“In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Volume IV (Fourth Edition), ‘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 community have
a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal right or liabilities are affected.”
In Black’s Law Dictionary, (Sixth Edition), ‘Public Interest’ is defined as –
“Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything
so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be
affected by the matters in question, Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of Local,
State or National government...."”i
The expression ‘Public Interest’ has not been defined either in Constitution of India or in any
statute. However, this word finds mention in certain provisions of the Constitution of India ii
and certain other statutesiii. The responsibility vests with the Legislature and the Judiciary to
define the limits to interpret the word ‘Public Interest’. It is the paramount duty of the Courts
to ensure that only the genuine claims are entertained and Courts are not flooded with
unnecessary frivolous petitions.
The expression ‘litigation’ means a legal action filed in a Court of Law with the purpose of
enforcing one’s right or seeking a remedy for the wrong committed by other person.
Therefore, lexically the expression ‘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 a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal
rights and liabilities were affected. iv It is filed by a person or an organization that has no
personal gain or interest except to protect general interest or public interest.
To sum up, Public Interest Litigation means litigation filed to serve interest of public by a
public spirited person. Four conditions to be fulfilled for existence of a Public Interest
Litigation are as follows:
 Some action, inaction or State of affairs

Which violates the rights of large number

of people, or causes a large number of
people to suffer a similar wrong

The right is sought to be enforced or the

wrong redressed, through a petition to the
Court

By a public spirited person or an

association of persons acting on behalf of
the others

Self Assessment Question 1

Q. a. Explain the meaning of Public Interest Litigation.

Q.b. What conditions need to be fulfilled for filing a Public Interest Litigation?

4. Origin of Public Interest Litigation

4.1. USA
The concept of Public Interest Litigation originated in the United States of America in late
Nineteenth century. The famous Gideon’s case of U.S.A.v formed the basis for the concept of
Public Interest Litigation. The facts of the case were that Clearance Larl Gideon sent a scrawl
letter to the Supreme Court of United States pleading before the Court that he was a pauper
and the Florida Trial Court had denied his request to appoint counsel for his defense contrary
to the American Constitution. The 9 judges of the Supreme Court treated the letter as petition
and allowed his plea by relaxing the procedural law which created history. This case led to
recognition of the first Legal Aid Office in New York City established in 1876vi as a primary
defender in criminal matters.
In 1960s, United States of America witnessed a period of social unrest during which many
changes were made to the many institutions as well as significant reforms were introduced
and practiced. One such significant institutional reform was evolution of Public Interest
Litigation. In the United States of America, this branch of law is included under the term
‘Public Interest Law’. vii
In 1976, the phrase ‘public law litigation’ was first prominently used by American Professor
Abram Chayes to describe the practice of lawyers or public spirited individuals who seek to
bring about social change through court-ordered decrees that reform legal rules, enforce
existing laws and articulate public norms.viii Public Interest law includes all efforts made to
provide legal representation to the unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken as the existing legal services system failed to protect the interest of significant
section of the population and significant interest groups. These unrepresented or under-
represented interest groups include not only the poor and the disadvantaged but also ordinary
citizens who cannot afford lawyers to represent them when their interests are affected by any
action. Thus, the legal aid laid the foundation for building the edifice of Public Interest
Litigation in the world.
The concept of Public Interest Litigation in the United States of America has undergone many
changes with the passage of time. It has passed through various changes and modifications in
their common law based systems.
4.2. India
Public Interest Litigation is concerned with providing access to justice to all sections of the
society. Public Interest Litigation in India has been a part of the constitutional scheme and not
any ordinary statutory law. In order to appreciate the evolution of Public Interest Litigation in
India, it is desirable to have a basic understanding of the constitutional framework and the
judiciary in India.
After independence, the people of India adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949 with
a dream to establish a ‘‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’’. The founding
fathers wanted to achieve a social revolution through the Constitution. The main tools
employed to achieve such social change are the provisions relating to Fundamental rights
(Part III of the Indian Constitution) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the
Indian Constitution). The Fundamental Rights are attributed its true scope by providing a
constitutional remedial mechanism for enforcement of these rights through an independent
judiciary. The remedy to approach the Supreme Court directly in case of violation of
Fundamental Rights is in itself a Fundamental Right under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. Although the Directive Principles are not justiciable, they are fundamental in the
governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in
making laws. An independent 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. These provisions related to Fundamental
Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and independent judiciary together provides a
firm constitutional foundation to the evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India.
Several reasons both political and legal contributed in development of Public Interest
Litigation. Kesavandabharati introduced new Constitutional interpretation protecting basic
Constitutional values, emergence of judicial review as a basic structure, proclamation of
emergency and its aftermath political implications, and the role of Supreme Court in
protection of fundamental rights during the emergency; particularly the ADM Jabalpur
judgment contributed in evolution of Public Interest Litigation. Importing ‘due process’
through Maneka Gandhi and infusing ‘reasonableness’ under Article 14, Supreme Court
paved way for innovations in protecting the rights of the public.
Further, the splendid efforts taken by the two judges, Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice
Krishna Iyer, of the Indian Supreme Court from 1970s to 1980s in respect to legal aid to
provide easier access to justice played key role in bringing about the revolution of Public
Interest Litigation.
In a report on legal aid in 1971, Justice P.N.Bhagwati observed that modifications may be
brought in the present adversary system while retaining its basic features. These changes may
be brought with respect to giving a judge a greater participatory role in the trial of a case. This
is essential so as to bring the poor, as far as possible, on equal footing with the rich in the
administration of justice.
Similarly the report of the Committee on Legal Aid presided by Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, in
1973ix dealt with the nexus between law and poverty and spoke of Public Interest Litigation in
this context. It emphasized the need for an active and widespread legal aid system that
enables the law to reach the poor rather than requiring the people to reach the law.
These two judges, Justice P.N.Bhagwati and Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer joined hands as Two
Member Committee on Juridicare which released its final report in August 1977x. The report
emphasized the need for a new philosophy of legal service programme. It cautioned that such
a programme must be framed in the light of socio economic conditions prevailing in our
country. It further noted that the traditional legal services programme which essentially is
court or litigation oriented cannot meet the specific needs and peculiar problems of the poor
in the country. The report also included draft legislation for legal services and referred to
Social Action Litigation, a synonym for Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation
was seen as a strategic arm of the legal aid movement intended to bring justice within the
reach of those who on account of their indigence, illiteracy and lack of resources, were unable
to reach the courts.xi
Soon after, these two judges took the lead in promoting the same by taking suo motto actions.
The seeds of the concept of Public Interest Litigation were sown in India in Mumbai Kamgar
Sabha v. Abdulbhaixii(without using the term – Public Interest Litigation) where the Supreme
Court observed that “Our adjectival branch of jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with
sophisticated litigants but the poor, the urban lay and the weaker societal segments for whom
law will be an added torture if technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting pleadings
and setting out the cause title create secret weapon to non-suit a part.” Judiciary realized that
technical difficulties in drafting legal pleadings results in denial of access to justice to a large
section of the society because of their extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and
illiteracy from time immemorial. There was an urgent need to provide access to justice to the
poor, deprived, vulnerable, discriminated and marginalized sections of the society. Hence,
Judiciary while exercising its power of judicial review initiated, encouraged and promoted
Public Interest Litigation in India.
Self Assessment Question 2

Q. a. Which American case formed the basis of Public Interest Litigation?

Q. b. Explain various factors that led to introduction of Public Interest Litigation in India?

4.3. PIL in USA and SAL in India

Given that the birth of Public Interest Litigation in India is connected to the evolution of
Public Interest Litigation in the United States, it becomes natural to draw comparisons
between the US experience and the Indian experience.
It was argued by Professor Upendra Baxi that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India should
be labeled as Social Action Litigation (SAL) because of its distinctive characteristics. He
contended that whereas Public Interest Litigation in the United States has focused on people
participation in governmental decision making, the Indian Public Interest Litigation discourse
was against State action and non-action and was focused primarily on the disadvantaged
section of the society. xiii
Writing in the early 1980s, Prof. Baxi highlighted another contrast. Unlike India, PIL in the
United States sought to represent interests without groups, such as consumerism or
environment. In India, the role of Public Interest Litigation is to bring about social change
through the active role of judges wherein the individual represents group interests. It is more
about interests within groups.xiv
However, the character of the Public Interest Litigation in India has changed a lot. It is not
limited to espousing the interests of disadvantaged sections of society or to redressing State
repression and governmental lawlessness. In fact, the focus of Public Interest Litigation in
India has shifted from poor to the middle class and from redressing State exploitation of
disadvantaged groups to pleas for civic participation in governance.
Although there are still differences between how the Public Interest Litigation jurisprudence
has unfolded in the United States and India, the distinction as to the subject-matter or the
basic objective of the Public Interest Litigation is not that much as it used to be when an
argument was made to label PIL as SAL.xv

Self Assessment Question 3

Q. a. Why does Prof. Baxi want to call Public Interest Litigation as Social Interest Litigation?

Q.b. What are the changes that took place in the manner of filling Public Interest Litigation
in India?
 5. Scope of Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation is a new jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court through
judicial activism. It protects the rights and interest of the under privileged and the weaker
section of the society who are oppressed, socially or economically or otherwise and are
unable to approach the court themselves. It is developed for the purpose of ensuring social
and economic justice for such under privileged and weaker classes.
In a fit and proper case if the court finds that the various ingredients of Public Interest
Litigation are present such as the underprivileged and socially and economically oppressed
segments of the society are unable to approach the courts, they are suffering legal wrong and
injury, they are socially and economically being exploited and there is a need to be rescued by
the court, the court will not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its inability to
help such underprivileged and oppressed class, but would have power to issue any direction,
order or writ including a writ in the nature of any high prerogative even if the condition for
the same are not fulfilled.xvi
Public Interest Litigation is a cooperative litigation in which the petitioner, the State or public
authority and the Court are to co-operate with one another in ensuring that the constitutional
obligation towards those who cannot resort to the Courts to protect their constitutional or
legal rights is fulfilled. In such a situation, the concept of cause of action evolved in the
background of private law and adversary procedure is out of place. The only question that can
arise is whether the prayers in the petition, if granted, will ensure such constitutional or legal
rights.xvii
Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. The purpose of Public
Interest Litigation is to promote the public interest which mandates that violation of legal or
constitutional rights of a large number of persons who are poor, down trodden, ignorant,
socially or economically disadvantaged should not go unredressed. The Court can take
cognizance of Public Interest Litigation where there are complaints that shock the judicial
conscience, the Litigation is pro bono publico and does not smack of any ulterior motive and
no person has a right to achieve any ulterior purpose through such litigation.xviii
The court must be careful that the members of the public who approach the court are acting
bonafide and not in personal garb of private profit or political motivation or other oblique
considerations.xix The court should not take cognizance in such matters merely because of its
attractive name. The petitioner must inspire the confidence of the court and must be above
suspicion. xx The petitioner must point out that the legal rights have been infringed.xxi Public
Interest Litigation must indicate how public interest was involved in the case.xxii No litigant
has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license
to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. xxiii Petitioner is not entitled to withdraw the
Public Interest Litigation at his sweet will unless the court sees reasons to permit
withdrawal. xxiv
It is well settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction , he should approach the court not only with clean hands but with
clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives.xxv The courts must do justice by promotion
of good faith and prevent the law from crafty evasions. Courts must maintain the social
balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it
is against the social interest and public good.xxvi

Self Assessment Question 4

Match the following

1. Public Interest Litigation a. Prof. Baxi

2. Social Action Litigation b. Letter as Petition
3. Clearance Larl Gideon c. Abram Chayes
4. Public Law Litigation d. Cooperative litigation

6. Features of Public Interest Litigation

6.1. Liberalisation of rule of Locus Standi
Locus Standi is a Latin word which literally means ‘place of standing’. It refers to a person’s
standing in the court of law. It means the right or capacity of a person to bring a legal action
or to appear in a court of law. It is a legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Without locus standi, one cannot be heard in a court of law. The traditional view is that the
person who approaches the court of law must show the court that he has suffered or likely to
suffer an injury by reason of infringement of his legal right or legally protected interest.
The predominant feature of Public Interest Litigation is liberalization of the traditional rule of
standing by the Supreme Court. In a Public Interest Litigation, any person can approach the
court of law on behalf of those who are aggrieved persons. This dilution in locus standi was
done for reasons such as poverty, ignorance, lack of knowledge and exploitation of vast
masses, high cost of litigation, democratization of justice, redress of public injuries and
avoiding plurality of litigation, curbing arbitrary State action and ensuring a responsible
government.xxvii
In Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of Indiaxxviii, the Supreme Court noted, “It may
become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a
broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceeding….” The term Public Interest
Litigation was officially used for the first time in the concurring opinion of Justice Krishna
Iyer in Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union case. Concurrence observed that “Public Interest
Litigation is part of the process of participatory justice and ‘standing’ in civil litigation of that
pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps.” Public Interest Litigation thus
emerged as a means for the judiciary to hold the government accountable and to catalyze
action against rights violations.
As observed by the Supreme Court, the seed of Public Interest Litigation that was sowed by
Justice Krishna Iyer “took its root firmly in the Indian Judiciary and blossomed fully with
fragrant smell ” in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India xxix . The Supreme Court delivering its
judgment through Justice P. N. Bhagwati evolved a new rule that any member of public
having sufficient interest and with bonafide intention can maintain a petition for redress of
public wrong or public injury. Such a claim may be filed by any individual, citizens, non-
citizens, any groups or non-political, non- profit and voluntary organisations. However, if the
petitioner is found to have personal gain from such petition, the court should not admit such
Public Interest Litigations. Court has however not liberalized the locus standi for criminal
cases.
Liberalisation of Locus Standi can be studied in three phases: In the first phase which began
in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s—the Public Interest Litigation cases were
generally filed by public-spirited persons such as lawyers, journalists, social activists or
academics. Most of the cases related to the rights of disadvantaged sections of society such as
child labourers, bonded labourers, prisoners, mentally challenged persons, pavement dwellers,
and women. The relief was sought against the action or non-action on the part of executive
agencies resulting in violations of FRs under the Constitution.
The second phase of the Public Interest Litigation was in the 1990s during which several
significant changes in filing of Public Interest Litigation took place. In comparison to the first
phase, the filing of Public Interest Litigation cases became more institutionalized. Several
specialized NGOs and lawyers started bringing matters of public interest to the courts on a
much regular basis. The breadth of issues raised in Public Interest Litigation also expanded
tremendously—from the protection of environment to corruption-free administration, right to
education, sexual harassment at the workplace, relocation of industries, rule of law, good
governance, and the general accountability of the Government. It is to be noted that in this
phase, the petitioners sought relief not only against the action/non-action of the executive but
also against private individuals, in relation to policy matters and regarding something that
would clearly fall within the domain of the legislature.
In the third phase which began with the 21st century is a period in which anyone could file a
Public Interest Litigation for almost anything. It seems that there is a further inclusion of
issues that could be raised as Public Interest Litigation, e.g. calling back the Indian cricket
team from the Australia tour and preventing an alleged marriage of an actress with trees for
astrological reasons.xxx
6.2. Epistolary Jurisdiction
Epistolary jurisdiction is unique feature of Public Interest Litigation. When jurisdiction of the
court is invoked by writing letters or even a telegram, the court is said to exercise Epistolary
jurisdiction. This procedural innovation was made by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S. P. Gupta v.
Union of Indiaxxxi where it was stated that it would “readily respond even to a letter addressed
by such individual acting pro bono publico” and treat it as a formal writ petition for Public
Interest Litigation purposes. The court further observed that it “has to innovate methods and
devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of people
who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.”
In Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India,xxxii the Supreme Court treated the letter written
to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India as a writ petition and intervened in the matter. The
members of Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan complained that homeless persons who are found dead
are not given a decent burial and questioned the right of the deceased homeless person for a
decent burial.
However, court does not treat every letter as a Public Interest Litigation. Court entertains
letter written by an aggrieved person, public spirited person or a social action group. In order
to avoid multiplicity of petitions and sometimes even frivolous petitions, the Supreme Court
has set up Public Interest Litigation and Information Cell with full-fledged staff to deal with
Epistolary jurisdiction. Letters are to be scrutinized by the Staff who is employed exclusively
for this purpose. If the letter is for infringement of fundamental right, it is to be sent to
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and if it is for any legal right, it is sent to Legal Aid
Board. This Cell provides updates on the status of pending cases.
6.3. Non- adversarial nature
Adversary system means a system that involves two conflicting parties who come to the court
who is a neutral, unbiased entity to prove their stand or point. In a non-adversarial system,
there is absence of such two contending or conflicting parties. It is more of resolving the
problem rather than blaming each other.
Another key feature of Public Interest Litigation is its non-adversarial nature in which the
Supreme Court has transformed from traditional litigation involving two opponents. There is
no winning or losing in a Public Interest Litigation. This change was brought to ensure that no
injustice is caused where parties are not evenly balanced in social or economic strength. In
People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of Indiaxxxiii , the court stated that
“Public Interest Litigation, as we conceive it, is essentially a cooperative or collaborative
effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the court to secure
observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred upon the
vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them.”
The court, parties and lawyers are expected to participate in resolution of a public problem. In
such cases judges take more active role in asking questions to both the parties to explore the
solutions in a case. It is a matter of collective problem solving rather than of accusation
against each other. The PUDR decisionxxxiv even went so far as to say that the State should
“welcome” a PIL, “as it would give it an opportunity to right a wrong or redress an injustice
done to the poor and weaker sections of the community whose welfare is and must be the
prime concern of the State or public authority.”
6.4. Appointment of Commissions
In a Public Interest Litigation, the petition is filed directly in the Supreme Court or the High
Courts under Article 32xxxv or Article 226xxxvi of the Indian Constitution respectively. Parties
do not have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on record before the start of the
proceedings. Therefore, the courts have to manage the collection of facts, data and evidence
on their own. This hardship of the courts is overcome by appointment of Commissions to
carry out an inquiry or investigation into the matter and to submit its report to the courts.
Supreme Court in the past have appointed District Judge, a professor at law, a journalist, an
officer of the court, an advocate and sometimes even a social scientist as a Commissioner.xxxvii
The rationale behind appointment of such Commission is to reduce the cost and burden on the
public interest litigant to collect data and evidence. There is also need of impartial machinery
for assessment of facts and materials on record as State officials may tend to be biased in
conducting such inquiry and investigation. Another reason is that the courts do not have a
separate and independent body to carry out such investigations.
In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, xxxviii the Supreme Court used the services of two
advocates to ascertain the truth of the complaint of torture done to a prisoner in Tihar jail. The
advocates visited the prison, met the prisoners, reviewed relevant documents, interviewed
necessary witnesses and prepared a lengthy report about the scenario in the prison. The Court
appreciated the efforts of the advocates and also accepted their findings.

Self Assessment Question 5

Q. a. What is Locus standi and why did Supreme Court liberalize it?

Q.b. What is Epistolary Jurisdiction?

Q.c. Public Interest Litigation is part of the process of_________________________

7. Abuse of Public Interest Litigation

The judicial innovation to protect the interest of the underprivileged, disadvantaged and the
needy through Public Interest Litigation has in later stages being abused by the litigants. The
misuse of Public Interest Litigation started in 1990s when nature of filing of such petitions
changed. People started using Public Interest Litigation as means to achieve their personal
ends under the guise of Public Interest Litigation. Some petitions were filed with the sole
objective to gain popularity in the society as Public Interest Litigation lawyer. Some were
filed to fulfill the politically and financially motivated agendas. Some litigants who
specialized in Public Interest Litigation were nothing but blackmailers. The very purpose and
concept of Public Interest Litigation has been diluted by such frivolous petitions.
An attempt was made by the Government in 1996 by proposing ‘The Public Interest
Litigation (Regulation) Bill’ to punish those who file frivolous PIL. However, the Bill could
not receive majority support and lapsed. However, the judiciary has built its own mechanism
through guidelines to treat self-created problem. Claims only of bonafide individuals are
entertained by Supreme Court and High Courts instead of all Public Interest Litigations.
Courts also impose exemplary costs in vexatious litigations. xxxix The Supreme Court has
cautioned High courts to be selective in qualifying petitions as Public Interest Litigation.

8. Procedure to file a Public Interest Litigation

8.1.1. Drafting of the Petition
Public Interest Litigation has become an indispensable part of Indian Legal process. In order
to achieve, the best result, it is very important to understand the proper manner to draft a
Public Interest Litigation. As we have discussed earlier (8.5.2 Epistolary Jurisdiction), the
courts do not insist on any specific style and manner for filing a Public Interest Litigation.
However there are more chances that a well drafted Public Interest Litigation stands a fair
chance in the court of law and shall give a desirable outcome in the public interest.
Below is the format for drafting a Public Interest Litigation:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. _____OF 20___

In the matter of:
_________ (Name)
_________ (Address) .....Petitioner(s)

Versus
_________ (Name)
_________ (Address) .....Respondents(s)

A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

To,
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and
His Lordship's Companion Justices of
The Supreme Court of India.

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
Para 1: Description of Petitioner (s), credentials, mention of bonafide public interest
Para 2: Description of violation of fundamental rights of the people or certain identified group
Para 3: Description of respondents involving their acts or omissions
Para 4: Facts and circumstances in chronological order establishing the violation of
fundamental rights by the respondents
Para 5: Grounds
Para 6: Mention that you have not filed any petition on the same subject matter in any other
courts
Para 7: Mention that Supreme Court is the most appropriate forum
Para 8: Mention that you have acted with diligence and have not unduly delayed the matter
before the court
Prayer: It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) Pray for the appropriate writ as per the facts and circumstances of the court
(ii) Costs
(iii) Pass such other orders and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
For which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.
Filed by: Petitioner-in-person
Place: (Name and Signature)
Date:
List of documents
Following are the list of the document that are required to be attached to the petition;

Writ
petitio
Affidav Memo
n (SC-5
Cover Synops List of it in Annex of
Index Copies
Page is Dates suppo ures Appea
, HC - 5
rt rance
copies
)

8.1.2. Court Fees

A court fee of rs. 50, per respondent (i.e. for each number of opposite party, court
fees of RS. 50) has to be affixed on the petition.
9. Supreme Court Guidelines
Supreme Court of India has laid down certain guidelines that are to be followed for
entertaining letters/petitions received in the court as Public Interest Litigation.
(Based on full Court decision dated 1.12.1988 and subsequent modifications).
Areas covered under Public Interest Litigation
Letter-petitions falling under the following categories alone will ordinarily be entertained as
Public Interest Litigation:
 Bonded Labour matters Neglected Children

Labour law matters dealing Prison and Prisoners’

especially with minimum wages conditions

Petitions against police for

refusing to register a case, Petitions relating to
harassment by police and death treatment to women
in police custody

Petitions dealing with

harassment to SCs and STs and Petitions pertaining to
economically backward classes environmental protection

Petitions from riot –victims Family Pension

Areas not covered under Public Interest Litigation

Cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as Public Interest
Litigation:
 1 Landlord-Tenant matters

Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and

2 Gratuity

Complaints against Central/ State Government

3 Departments and Local Bodies except those relating to
item Nos. (1) to (10) above.

4 Admission to medical and other educational institution

Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts

5 and Subordinate Courts

6 Petitions concerning maintenance for wife, children and parents

Self Assessment Question 6

Q. a. A Court fee of Rs. ________ per _____________has to be affixed on the petition

Q.b. In what matters does the Supreme Court accept letters as Public Interest Litigation?

Q.c. In what matters Supreme Court would not accept letters as Public Interest Litigation?

9. Summary
Litigation is the most sought method in enforcing the rights. However, challenging the
State for enforcing social and group rights requires different strategies. The legal
remedies that are available for enforcing individual rights often may be inadequate in
dealing with rights of the public. Recognizing this, the Indian Judiciary developed Public
Interest Litigation to protect the rights of the community, downtrodden and disadvantaged
groups. Public Interest Litigation being non-adversarial necessitated evolving new
 remedies such as appointment of commissions, appointment of amicus curie and
accepting letters as petition for proving complete justice. As a result there is a litigation
explosion and the Judiciary has to prevent its abuse, came up with several guidelines
regulating the use of Public Interest Litigation. In prescribing these guidelines the
Supreme Court has shown remarkable wisdom striking balance between Public Interest
Litigation and Personal Interest Litigation.

i
Dr. B.L.Wadehra, Public Interest Litigation (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, Second
Edition 2009) 44
ii
Article 302 of the Constitution of India: Power of Parliament to impose restrictions on trade,
commerce and intercourse Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade,
commerce or intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as
may be required in the public interest
iii
Section124 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Official communications: No public officer shall be
compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the
public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
iv
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892
v
Gideon v. Wain Wright , 372 NS 335 (1963)
vi
The Legal Aid Office provided for legal assistance to the German immigrants in USA. The German
Society of New York assisted these immigrants.
vii
Supra note 1 at 142
viii
Abram Chayes, ‘The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation’, 89 Harvard Law Review 1281
(May 1976)
ix
See, Processual Justice to the People: Report of the Expert Committee on Legal Aid (May 1973)
x
See, Report on National Juridicature: Equal Justice-Social Justice (August 1977)
xi
See Ashok S. Desai and S. Muralidhar, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Potentials and Problems’ (Oxford
University, Press, 2000)
xii
AIR 1976 SC 1455
xiii
See Upendra Baxi, ‘Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of
India’ (1983), Third World Legal Studies, Volume 4, Article 6
xiv
Id
xv
Surya Deva, ‘Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review’, Reprinted from Civil Justice
Quarterly, Issue 1, 2009, Sweet & Maxwell, London
xvi
State v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Cal 181
xvii
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Cal 89
xviii
P.M.Bakshi, ‘Public Interest Litigations’,(Ashoka Law House, New Delhi, Edition:1998)13
xix
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
xx
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109
xxi
Mohammad Anis v. Union of India, 1994 Supp 1 SCC 145
xxii
Gyani Davender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1847
xxiii
Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K.Prasaran, (1996) Cri. LJ 3983
xxiv
S.P. Anand v. S.D.Devegowda, AIR 1997 SC 272
xxv
K.R. Sriniwas v. R.M. Premchand, 1994 (6) SCC 620
xxvi
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481
xxvii
Dr. Mamta Rao, ‘Public Interest Litigation – Legal Aid and Lok Adalats’ (Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, Second Edition, 2004) 67,68
xxviii
AIR 1881 SC 344
xxix
AIR 1982 SC 149
xxx
Supra note 15
xxxi
AIR 1982 SC 149
xxxii
AIR 2002 SC 979
xxxiii
1982 AIR 1473
xxxiv
Id
xxxv
Article 32 of the Constitution of India - Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed…
xxxvi
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution- Power of High Courts to issue certain writs :
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose…
xxxvii
Supra note 2at 280
xxxviii
AIR 1980 SC 1579
xxxix
See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari (1992)4 SCC 305, Kirshna Swami v. Union of India (1992) 4
SCC 605, B. Singh v. union of India AIR 2004 SC 1923.