Introduction:
The Supreme Court (SC) of India recently admonished a petitioner for presenting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) without sufficient groundwork. This news sheds light on the significance, merits, and drawbacks of PILs in the Indian judicial landscape.
Understanding Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) holds a significant place in advancing human rights and establishing equality. It also raises issues that concern larger public interest. Originating from American jurisprudence, PIL is litigation introduced in the court of law meant for the protection of public interest, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or any other private party. In India, it can be filed only in the Supreme Court or High Court, contrasting a Writ Petition filed by individuals or institutions for their own benefit.
Role of PIL in Upholding Constitutional Principles
The concept of PIL aligns with the principles embedded in Article 39 A of the Indian Constitution to ensure social justice promptly with the help of law. Areas where PIL can be filed encompass diverse issues like pollution, terrorism, road safety, constructional hazards, among others.
Significance of PIL
PIL plays an instrumental role in fostering social change and maintaining the rule of law while facilitating a balance between law and justice. Initially, PILs were designed to make justice accessible to the underprivileged and marginalized sections of society. It democratizes access to justice, ensuring judicial monitoring of state-run institutions such as prisons, asylums, and protective homes. Moreover, it is pivotal in implementing the concept of judicial review.
Challenges Associated with PIL
However, PILs are also associated with certain limitations. First, the increasing misuse of PILs contributes to a high number of pending cases in courts. In 2010, the SC showed significant discontent over PILs involving personal or irrelevant cases, leading to the issuance of certain guidelines for accepting PILs.
Second, PIL may give rise to competing rights where the interests of certain groups could be overlooked. For instance, when a polluting industry is shut down by a court order, the livelihoods of the workers and their families might be ignored.
Third, procrastination in PIL matters related to exploited and disadvantaged groups leads to long-standing pending cases. This delay often makes many judgments merely of academic value.
Lastly, judicial overreach can occur when the judiciary tries to address socio-economic or environmental problems through PILs.
Proposed Solutions: Navigating the PIL Dilemma
Former Attorney General Soli Sorabji proposed three basic rules to regulate the abuse of PILs. He suggested rejecting dubious PILs at the outset with exemplary costs, discarding petitions challenging major projects or socio-economic regulations after significant delay due to latches, and maintaining regular litigation principles even if a petition is labeled as a PIL. He also advocated strict terms for PIL petitioners such as providing indemnity or adequate undertakings to compensate for damages in case the PIL is ultimately dismissed.
Last Modified: February 13, 2024