Statutory Protection of Public Interest Litigation in India: Constitutional Foundations and Legislative Backing

Abstract

In India, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has evolved into an effective tool for promoting social justice, enabling individuals and groups to seek legal remedies for issues affecting the general public or disadvantaged populations. Its protection and legality are essentially based on constitutional provisions, most notably Articles 32 and 226, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to uphold fundamental rights, as well as Articles 14, 21, 19, and 39A, among others.

While PIL is not specified in a single legislation, its practice is supported by legislative backing in the form of laws that grant procedural powers, such as the ability of courts to issue writs under the Constitution, as well as statutes that create rights that PILs can enforce.

Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means it is a petition filed by an individual on behalf of a group or an organisation/institution which works for the interest of the public to ensure that justice is accessible to each person whose rights have been violated. It is not for personal interest or any other private interest. It is only meant for the violation of the legal rights of the public at large.

There is no statutory definition of PIL in Indian law. The primary goal of PIL is to increase access to justice for those in the lower echelons of society who lack the resources necessary to protect their legal rights in the event of a violation by the government or any other government-controlled entity. The government can be held responsible for ignoring or dismissing public concerns, participating in corrupt activities, and failing to enforce the laws enacted by the legislature.

Issues Covered and Not Covered Under the PIL

Issues Covered Under the PIL

• Environmental-related issues
• Atrocities on humanity
• Exploitation of workers
• Unpaid minimum wages
• Neglected children
• Debt slavery
• Bonded labour
• Custodial deaths
• Women-related issues
• Food adulteration
• Maintenance of heritage and culture

Issues Not Covered Under the PIL

• Private interest issues
• Tenancy issues
• Admissions in educational institutions
• Maintenance disputes
• Pension-related issues
• Other matters involving the private interests of an individual

Summary Table

Who Can File a PIL?

Any citizen can file a petition on a public case. Any citizen can file a petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court, under Article 226 before the High Courts, and under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of Magistrate^[1].

However, the court must be satisfied that the writ petition meets some basic requirements for a PIL because the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person, a public-spirited individual, or a social action group for the enforcement of legal or constitutional rights to any person who is unable to approach the court for redress. A Public Interest Litigation can be initiated against the State/Central Government or Municipal Authorities, but not against any private entity.

Significance of PIL

• PIL is a crucial tool for social transformation, upholding the rule of law, and balancing law and justice.
• Initially aimed to make justice available to the poor and underprivileged.
• Extends human rights to individuals who have been denied them.
• Makes justice accessible to everyone by allowing capable individuals or organizations to file petitions on behalf of others.
• Facilitates judicial oversight of governmental institutions such as prisons, asylums, and protective homes.
• Serves as an essential tool for judicial review.

Constitutional Foundations of PIL

Statutory Backing for PIL

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Enacted under Article 39A, this Act provides free legal aid to ensure justice is accessible, particularly for poor or marginalized people.

Agencies involved include:

• NALSA – National Legal Services Authority
• SLSA – State Legal Services Authority
• DLSA – District Legal Services Authority
• TLSC – Taluk Legal Services Committees

These bodies assist litigants who cannot afford counsel in a PIL or public interest matter.

Cases Relating to PIL

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

Facts

In 1977, R. F. Rustum, a member of the National Police Commission, reported that many under-trial convicts in Bihar were held without trial for extended periods. Some were imprisoned longer than the maximum sentence they would have faced if convicted.

Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani, after reading about this in The Indian Express, filed a PIL under Article 32 on behalf of undertrial detainees, including Hussainara Khatoon.

The petitioners argued that these detainees were denied trial and legal aid, remaining imprisoned for years due to poverty.

Issues

• Does extended imprisonment without trial violate Article 21’s right to life and liberty?
• Does Article 21 include the right to free legal aid for the needy?
• Can a PIL be maintained under Article 32 even if the petitioners are not directly affected?
• Does the state have a duty to ensure a speedy trial?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that a PIL could be maintained by a public-spirited individual even if not personally affected. The right to a speedy trial was recognized as an essential part of Article 21. The Court directed the State to classify undertrials, expedite trials, grant bail where appropriate, and ensure free legal aid under Articles 21 and 39A^[3].

P. Gupta vs President of India & Others (1981)

Facts

Lawyers and public interest groups filed writ petitions challenging the executive’s policies on the appointment and transfer of judges. The issues included delayed confirmations, transfers without consent, and executive interference in judicial appointments.

Issue

Is a PIL maintainable in matters of judicial appointments and constitutional structure?

Judgement

The Supreme Court adopted a liberal view on locus standi, holding that public-spirited individuals can challenge executive actions affecting constitutional governance. The Court emphasized judicial independence, limited executive privilege, and recognized PIL as a vital tool to ensure transparency and justice^[4].

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)

Facts

Shriram Food & Fertiliser Industries operated a chemical plant in a densely populated area of Delhi. In December 1985, an oleum gas leak caused injuries. M.C. Mehta filed a PIL under Article 32 seeking closure, preventive measures, and compensation.

Issues

• Can hazardous industries operate in populated areas?
• Should the principle of strict or absolute liability apply?
• Can safety regulations be enforced under Article 32?
• Are corporations liable for compensation regardless of negligence?
• What preventive or remedial steps should the court impose?

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that industries engaged in hazardous activities bear absolute liability for damages without exceptions. The court recognized M.C. Mehta’s petition as a valid PIL for public safety and environmental protection. It laid down guidelines for industrial safety, monitoring, and regulatory enforcement^[5].

Conclusion

Public Interest Litigation has achieved remarkable success over the past decades. It has benefited bonded labourers, prisoners, women in protective homes, and other vulnerable groups through judicial intervention.

The most significant outcome of PIL has been the increased accountability of governments toward the human rights of the poor. PIL has established new legal norms regarding state liability for constitutional violations affecting weaker sections of society. However, the judiciary must exercise restraint to prevent judicial overreach and uphold the principle of Separation of Powers.

Written By: G.V.L. Prashasti