What is a PIL?

Public Interest Litigation means litigation filed to safeguard the interest of the public at large. It
may mean a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of the public interest or
general interest in which the public or a class or community has a pecuniary interest or has some
interest because it will affect their legal right or liabilities.
Public Interest Litigation Defined
Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India explained PIL as “Where a legal wrong or
a legal injury is caused to a person or a determinate class of persons because of violation of any
constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or
legal provision or without the authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal
burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons by reasons of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach
the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate
direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any breach of
fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons, in this court under Article 32
seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or legal injury caused to such person or determinate
class of persons.”
Where did the concept originate?
Under the Indian legal system, the concept of Public Interest Litigation has been said to have
been borrowed from the American system of Public Interest Law. However, in the U.S.A. it has
been invoked largely to improve the life conditions of the Blacks and ensure human rights to
them. The main reason for the growth of Public Interest Law in the U.S.A. was the failure of
administrative agencies to protect public interest. In India, the concept of Public Interest
Litigation was invoked to represent genuine cases of oppressed masses of our society before the
court. It is essentially a social action covering a variety of rights and is wider than as used in the
U.S.A.
Evolution of PIL in India
The seed of the concept of Public Interest Litigation was initially sown in India by Justice V.R.
Krishna Iyer (without assigning the terminology) in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai.
The terminology Public Interest Litigation was coined by Justice P.N.Bhagwati in Fertilizer
Kamgar Union v. Union of India where the question was whether the workers in a factory
owned by the Government could question the legality and/or validity of the sale of certain plants
and equipment of the factory by the management.
This innovative approach of the judiciary started gaining momentum day by day, expanding its
branches in the cosmos of Public Interest litigation and strengthening its roots firmly in the
Indian judiciary and fully blossomed with a fragrant smell in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India.
Procedure of Entertaining Public Interest Litigation
PIL is a long-arm strategy of the judiciary to reach justice to those who due to socio-economic
handicaps cannot reach the doors of the courts. Therefore, it is a judge-led and judge-induced
strategy and represents a high bench-mark of judicial creativity and sensitivity to the weak and
vulnerable.
The judiciary has adopted some procedural innovations while entertaining Public Interest
Litigation. They are:
1. Liberalization of Rule of Locus Standi:
The principle of locus standi presupposes the presence of a person or body of persons who
suffered a legal injury. It may also be taken to mean a legal capacity to challenge an act, an order
or a decision. Further, the issue raised must be justiciable.
The higher Courts exercised wide powers given to them under Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1970s loosened the strict locus standi
requirements to permit the filing of petitions on behalf of marginalized and deprived sections of
society by public-spirited individuals, institutions, and/or bodies.
In Fertilizer Kamgar Union v. Union of India, where the terminology of public interest
litigation was used for the first time, the Supreme Court heldWe do not doubt that in competition
between Courts and streets and dispenser of justice, the rule of law must win the aggrieved
person for the law Court and wean him from the lawless streets. In simple terms, locus standi
must be liberalized to meet the challenges of the times. Ubi jus ibi remedium must be enlarged to
embrace all interests of public-minded citizens or organizations with serious concern for the
conservation of public resources and the direction and correction of public power to promote
justice in its triune facets.
2. Treating letters as writ petitions and letters being addressed to individual judges,
developing the idea of epistolary jurisdiction:
The letters addressed to the Judges of the Supreme Court highlighting any suffering or
grievances have been converted into writ petitions on the logic that Article 32(1) of the
Constitution does not say to ‘who’ shall have the right to move the Supreme Court, nor does it
say by ‘what’ proceedings.
Public interest litigation acquired a new dimension – namely that of ‘epistolary jurisdiction’ with
the decision in the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, It was initiated by a letter that
was written by a prisoner lodged in jail to a Judge of the Supreme Court. The prisoner
complained of a brutal assault committed by a Head Warden on another prisoner. The Court
treated that letter as a writ petition, and, while issuing various directions, opined that: “…
technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal
communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are found”.
3. Suo motu intervention by the Judges:
Suo motu intervention by the Judges is directed to check a continuing abuse of power by the
executive, especially in allegations of atrocity or torture in police custody or jail.
4. Adoption of non-adversarial procedure of justice and appointment of commissioners
for fact-finding:
The reason for the disapproval of the adversarial procedure for public interest litigation matters is
that it sometimes leads to injustice where the parties are not evenly balanced in social or
economic strength due to the difficulty in getting competent legal representation and due to the
inability to produce relevant evidence before the court. The Supreme Court has sometimes
appointed a District Judge, a professor of law, a journalist, an officer of the Court, an advocate,
and sometimes a social scientist as a commissioner, to carry out an inquiry or investigation and
make a report to the Court.
Foundations of Change
Hussainara Khatoon case is not only very early in the history of the public interest litigation but
it displays most dramatically and compellingly so many of the key features of Indian Public
Interest Litigation. On January 11, 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a habeas corpus petition in the
SC on behalf of nineteen undertrial prisoners. The first named petitioner was Hussainara
Khatoon, a young woman who had fled with her family from Bangladesh some time in 1975. She
was arrested and held in protective custody in jail for four years, even though the Indian
Government had issued instructions that all those arrested under the Foreigners Act coming from
Bangladesh should be released on bond. From this moment of inception, the Hussainara Khatoon
case helped establish the most important features: A petition need not be filed by a person whose
own legal rights are at issue; can be brought by any public spirited citizen; need not be based on
personal knowledge but can be supported by material like newspaper articles; both important
legal principles and substantial relief can be created at preliminary stage and scope of litigation
can be expanded beyond the initial petition.

Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan: This case is related to the issue of sexual harassment in the
workplace. As a result, the Vishaka Guidelines came into effect, published in 1997, which
provided employers with the definition of sexual harassment, a list of preventative strategies,
and information on filing complaints of workplace sexual harassment.
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India: This case is related to pollution in the Ganges basin. The
judgment criticised the local government for giving permission for untreated sewage from
Kanpur’s tanneries to enter the Ganges. Directions were given to prevent the consequences of
water and air pollution on millions of people in the Ganga basin and emphasized the need for
sustainable development.
Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India: This case was filed to facilitate hospitals to handle
emergency accident cases without concern for pending police investigations. The judgment
made it obligatory for a hospital or doctor, public and private, to provide immediate medical
aid to a road accident victim.