Analyze the role of PIL in securing fundamental rights and social justice in India with help of decided case law.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has played a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights and promoting social justice in India. It represents a judicial mechanism through which the courts can actively address issues that affect public interest, even in the absence of direct involvement by the aggrieved party. This legal tool, born out of judicial activism, has proven instrumental in ensuring justice for the marginalized and underprivileged sections of society. Several key aspects of PIL, including its origins, examples, and implications, can be analyzed to appreciate its impact on the Indian legal landscape.
1. Origins and Definition of PIL:
PIL is not explicitly defined in any statute; instead, it has been interpreted by judges to serve the broader interest of the public. In simple terms, it involves litigation filed in a court of law for the protection of public interest, covering a range of issues such as pollution, terrorism, road safety, and more. Unlike traditional litigation, PIL can be initiated by the court itself or any public-spirited individual, allowing for a more proactive approach to address societal concerns.
2. Scope of Public Interest Litigation:
Public Interest Litigation can be filed in various areas, including the violation of basic human rights of the poor, challenges to government policies, compelling municipal authorities to perform public duties, and addressing violations of religious or other fundamental rights. The focus is on matters that impact the broader public rather than individual grievances.
3. Case Law Illustration:
In the case of the Bombay High Court directing broadcasters to adhere to the Cable Television Network Act 1995, the court responded to a PIL filed by a concerned citizen highlighting the negative impact of uncertified films on cable channels, especially on children. This case exemplifies how PIL can be a powerful tool to address issues affecting public interest, leading to court directives for compliance.
4. Legal Foundation and Constitutional Basis:
The Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of environmental protection and citizens’ right to a healthy life, affirmed the concept of PIL in the case of Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar. The court held that the right to live includes the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air, emphasizing the citizens’ right to approach the court for the removal of pollution detrimental to their quality of life.
5. Evolution of PIL in India:
The introduction of PIL in India in the 1980s marked a significant departure from the traditional approach to litigation. Before this period, litigation was primarily seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of individual interests. PIL, as pioneered by the Supreme Court, allowed for a broader perspective, enabling individuals and social groups to address wider issues affecting the general public.
6. Benefits and Challenges:
PIL has emerged as a boon for vigilant citizens seeking an inexpensive legal remedy for public issues. It enables litigants to focus on larger public concerns related to human rights, consumer welfare, and the environment. However, there is a growing concern about the abuse of PIL, with frivolous cases being filed for personal gain or harassment. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to regulate the management and disposal of PILs and ensure their genuine use.
In conclusion, Public Interest Litigation in India has become a powerful tool for securing fundamental rights and promoting social justice. Through PIL, the courts have opened their doors to the common man, allowing them to actively participate in the judicial process and address issues of wider societal importance. While challenges exist, the overall impact of PIL has been significant in shaping a more inclusive and accessible legal system in India.
Author Bio
CWP 12605/96 was decided on 12/01/2015 based on false fabricated evidence, R1R2, along with forged false statements in the High Court of Chandigarh. We, the owners of MIG flats 1BHK under the social housing scheme, suffered injustice, as PUD@ benefited from a significant escalation in price by Rs 166,800 without notice and without disclosing all cost charts from 1989 to 1996. R1R2 were fabricated fraudulent pieces of evidence. We were unable to proceed to the Supreme Court due to financial problems. We obtained R1R2 from the court file later on and discovered the fraud committed by PUDA. Please advise if filing a PIL to reopen the case is possible, or if pursuing resolution in Lok Adalat is an option for justice to all allottees.