Public interest litigation has emerged over the years as an effective and much needed tool for facilitating the judiciary’s attempt to address issues that the public faces. This is all the more so for the Supreme Court, which is the guardian of our fundamental rights. Administrative law relies upon concepts such as the rule of law, conceptualised by A.V. Dicey, and natural justice, which mandates both fairness and accountability, in order to ensure fairness in governance. These administrative actions often require a check, and India as a country relies heavily on checks and balances in its philosophy to prevent powerful institutions running amok. As such, public interest litigation is yet another tool in the citizen’s arsenal to ensure that such administrative power is not misused. This section of the paper attempts to explore the interaction of the public interest litigation with crucial aspects of administrative law such as rule of law and natural justice and will go on to hypothesize that public interest litigation reinforces these worthy principles within the Indian framework. This paper will be fuelled by case law analysis and scholarly works to further its arguments.
Public interest litigation in India is a judiciary led movement, finding its origins in such illustrious personalities as justice Bhagwati and justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1970s-80s.
This innovation in access to justice allows individuals to seek legal remedy on behalf of a group, and as such, aims to provide a way for those citizens to seek aid of the court who are usually underrepresented due to a lack of resources and privilege. It also seeks to keep the government accountable to its citizens, especially those who usually are not able to enact any sanctions of any kind whatsoever upon their representatives, leaving their displeasure toothless. PILs have, over the years, grown to encompass all sorts of subjects, from environmental issues to human rights protection. Courts have actively intervened, in an admirable display of proactivity, instead of the expected and almost tiresome reactivity that one is so used to from the judiciary. This is a good place to look at ways in which PILs allowed courts to direct policy in favour of what the citizens of India want. For example, the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, where the court directed states to frame policies that consistently work to eliminate the child labour that is so rampant in India, provide compulsory education to children employed in factories, mining, and other industries, and more.
This case makes for a convincing argument on the pros of PILs, without which individual in need might end up in situations where they are unable to ask for redress they desperately need or challenge the government on constitutional violations that deeply impact lives of citizens. Public interest litigation also often involves the use of principles of natural justice, described by Justice P N Bhagwati as “fair play in action”; such as Audi alteram partem, and Nemo Judex Non-Causa Sua, or Nemo Debt Esse Judex Propria Cause. Audi Altera Partem has been extended to the right to notice. It has been held by the courts that this tool exists to enable a statutory body to enact justice without bias. One can also see that this rule is solidly codified in the constitution of India, in article 14, which the court has observed to be simply an explicit expression of the existing principle of natural justice. By giving all parties, a chance at a fair hearing, the court ensures both that justice is manifestly seen to be done, and also that administrative transparency and fairness can be ensured via public interest litigation. As such, public interest litigation allows the court, and thus the judiciary, to maintain oversight upon the administrative decisions being made in the country. By examining actions that might violate legal and constitutional norms, the court, facilitated by PILs, prevents unchecked power, and enforces the democratic spirit in India. It is thus increasingly obvious that Public Interest Litigation ensures administrative transparency and effectiveness. public interest litigation has also been used as a tool for policy direction, illuminating a direction that administrative authorities could take in order to create policies that align both with the constitution of India and also the needs of the people, who are sovereign in their own right.
None of this, however, is to say that the concept of public interest litigation is without potential pitfalls. One of the great risks that PILs bring with them is that of judicial overreach, where courts and the judiciary reach beyond their domain of judicial review and into that of the executive, threatening to disrupt the balance of power outlined in the constitution. Making it easy to file PILs is a similarly double-edged sword, allowing political motives to hijack the process by filing frivolous petitions. Moreover, PILs might well result in delay in administrative proceedings, owing to the constant directions being issued by the courts.
In conclusion, public interest litigation is a critical mechanism in the overall machinery of the judicial system as well as the administrative system, a crucial intersection between the two otherwise separate realms. It allows a platform to address administrative grievances without moving along the chain of command within the administration itself, thus reducing the risk of bias- this is one of the ways in which the principle of nemo judex non causa Sua, allowing people options other than going to administrators with complaints against administrators. Thus, public interest litigation allows and encourages access to justice especially to those who are marginalized and underrepresented, and also serves as a check on arbitrary power. This is how public interest litigation as a concept interacts with both rule of law and the principles of natural justice, reinforcing them in the way we deal with administrative law in India.
References:
Upendra Baxi, Public Interest Litigation in India: A Critical Review (Second edn, ICJ 1985)
Article 32 of the Constitution of India
AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Social Justice and the Handmaid of Law (Eastern Book Company 1976).
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161
PN Bhagwati, ‘Social Action Litigation: The Indian Experience’ (1985) 20 Tex Intl LJ 291
Uma Nath Pandey and Anr v State of UP (2009) 12 SCC 40.
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Tulshiram Patel v Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 398
