<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n“Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium” is one of the defining principles of\nCommon Law. The sayings goes as, \u2018Where there is a right, there is a remedy.\u2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, people have the\nright to petition the Supreme Court for justice if they believe their rights have\nbeen “unduly deprived.” Under Article 32, citizens may bring a Public\nInterest Litigation before the Supreme Court in the interest of the general\ngood. The court itself may also take up a PIL pursuant to Article 32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In many instances the Supreme Court has observed that Article 32\nprovides a “guaranteed” remedy for the enforcement of basic rights in\nthe case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras<\/em>\n(1950).<\/p>\n\n\n\n- Some Landmark Judgements in regard to Public\nInterest Litigation<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The\nroots of public interest litigation were sowed in India by Justice Krishna Iyer\nin the case of Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v.\nAbdul Thai<\/em> (1976).<\/p>\n\n\n\nHussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar<\/em> (1979 AIR 1369) was the first PIL case to be publicly\nreported. <\/p>\n\n\n\nIn the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union\nof India<\/em> (1981),\nJustice P.N. Bhagawati signalled the beginning of a new phase in the PIL\nmovement.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhile delivering the\njudgment in the case of Indian Banks’ Association,\nBombay and Ors. v. M\/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors<\/em> <\/em>(2004) the\nSupreme Court ruled that, in a case,\nwhere the petitioner has moved to the court for the redressal of a personal\ngrievance, but if the court thinks it as a necessity to enquire in the state\naffairs for the interest of public justice, than the court can convert the particular\nmatter into a public interest matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Factors That Are\nResponsible For the Growth of PIL in India<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe\nconcept of PIL was envisioned by the makers of our Constitution. But as a\nsociety, we have evolved a lot from independence, so the law related to Public\nInterest litigation. There have been many factors which played an essential\nrole in the growth, and these are as follows. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are a lot\nfactors which are responsible for the <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- The character of the Indian Constitution. The\n written constitution of India offers a framework for governing relations\n between the state and its citizens as well as between citizens themselves\n in Part III (it\n talks about the Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (it talks about the Directive\n Principles of State Policy).<\/li>
- In terms of bonded labour, minimum salaries, land\n ceilings, environmental protection, etc., India has some of the most\n advanced social laws in the whole world. This has made it simpler for the\n courts to hold the administration accountable when it fails to uphold the\n rights of the poor in accordance with the law of the state.<\/li>
- It has aided that the locus standi principle be\n interpreted liberally, allowing anybody to petition the court on behalf of\n persons who are physically or financially unable to appear in person. On\n the basis of media stories or correspondence they had received, judges\n have occasionally started suo actions themselves.<\/li>
- Despite the fact that the\n social and economic rights outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution\n are not legally enforceable, but the courts have imaginatively interpreted\n these rights to include basic rights, so that they can be judicially\n enforceable. For instance, the “Right to life” under Article 21\n has been widened to encompass the right to free legal assistance, the\n right to a life of dignity, the right to education, the right to\n employment, the freedom from torture, the prohibition of the use of\n handcuffs and bar fetters in jails, etc.<\/li>
- Legal developments to support the\n underprivileged and marginalised: For instance, in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha <\/em>case (1984 AIR 802),\n the Supreme Court placed the burden of evidence on the respondent, noting\n that until the employer could show otherwise, it would regard every\n occurrence of forced labour as an instance of bonded labour. Similar to\n this, Justice P.N. Bhagwati ruled in the Asiad Workers case that anyone\n earning less than the minimum wage can file a direct appeal with the\n Supreme Court without going via the labour commissioner or lower courts. <\/li>
- Courts have created commissions to gather information on the facts and\nbring it before the bench in PIL instances where the petitioner is not in a\nposition to give all the requisite evidence, either because it is extensive or\nbecause the parties are weak socially or economically.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Guidelines for Filling a Public Interest Litigation<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nLetters\/postcards\/ petitions filed for the following\nreasons will only be considered as PILs and will be entertained by the courts: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Matters\nrelated to neglected children.<\/li>
- Petition\nfiled regarding the non-payment of minimum wages to the workers and their\nexploitation<\/li>
- Petition\nfiled regarding the violation of labour laws. (This does not include individual\ncases)<\/li>
- Petition\nfiled for the speedy trials of the convicts. <\/li>
- Petition\nfiled for seeking release after completing the term of 14 years of\nimprisonment. <\/li>
- Petition\nfiled against police for not registering a case or police harassment or death\nof the person during the police custody. <\/li>
- Petition\nfilled particularly for the matters related to crime against women, bride\nburning, rape, murder, etc. <\/li>
- Petition\nfiled for mater related to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological\nbalance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture,\nantiques, forest and wild life <\/li>
- Petition\nfilled by riot -victims.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Who All Can File\nA PIL in India?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe following persons can file a Public Interest Litigation for the above the reasons: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Any\ncitizen can file a PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the\nSupreme Court of India.<\/li>
- Any\ncitizen can file a PIL under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the\nHigh Courts of India.<\/li>
- Any\ncitizen can file a PIL under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)\nof 1973 in the Court of Magistrate.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
It can also be in a form of letter, addressed by\nthe aggrieved party, or a public-spirited individual, or a social action group\nfor the enforcement of a legal or constitutional rights on the behalf of any\nperson who is unable to approach the court for redressal. Nevertheless, the\ncourt has to see that the Writ petition satisfies all the basic requirements\nfor a Public Interest Litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An action for public interest may be brought\nagainst the State or Central Government, municipal authorities, but not a\nprivate individual. The definition of a “state” is the same as that\nin Article 12 of the Constitution, and it covers the Indian Government, the\nIndian Parliament, the governments and legislatures of each of the States, as\nwell as any local or other authorities operating within the Indian Territory or\nunder the control of the Indian Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n