Public Interest Litigation

• A legal action brought in a court of law to enforce a public interest in which the general public or a community class has some interest and which could impact their legal rights or obligations is referred to as public interest litigation (PIL).

• The phrase "public interest litigation" is derived from American law. It was created to provide underrepresented groups with legal representation, including those who were underprivileged, from racial minorities, unorganized consumers, and those who were passionate about environmental issues, among others.

Evolution

• In Bombay Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai in 1976, Judge Krishna Iyer pioneered the concept of public interest litigation in India.
• The first PIL case known to the general public was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979). It concentrated on the inhumane treatment of detainees and those awaiting trial and led to the release of over 40,000 such detainees. It became evident that these prisoners had been denied one of the most fundamental rights—the right to speedy justice. The same preset pattern was applied in subsequent instances.
• Justice P.N. Bhagawati launched a new chapter in the PIL movement in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. In this case, it was decided that if they are unable to approach the court due to a social, economic, or other disability, "any member of the public or social action group acting bona fide" may use the Supreme Court's (Article 32) or the High Court's (Article 226) Writ Jurisdiction to seek redress against the violation of a person's legal or constitutional rights. According to this ruling, PIL could pursue "public obligations" in cases where an executive action or malfeasance harmed the public. Judge Bhagwati put much effort into clearly stating the concept of PILs. 
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, who is not a riparian owner but is interested in protecting the lives of those who use Ganga water, is allowed to petition the court for the execution of statutory restrictions in a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga water pollution in order to stop future contamination of Ganga water.
• The court determined that sexual harassment violated Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. 

Factors That Have Contributed To The Growth Of PIL

• The framework for regulating inter-se interactions between the state and its citizens is established in part III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).
• India has some of the most progressive social policies in the world regarding topics like bonded labour, minimum wages, land ceilings, environmental protection, and other challenges. As a result, the court has started to hold executives accountable when they do not uphold their obligations to defend the legal rights of the underprivileged.
• A liberal interpretation of the locus standi allows judges to act "suo moto" based on letters and newspaper articles.
• Courts have imaginatively interpreted the social and economic rights in Part IV of the Constitution as Fundamental Rights even though they are not legally enforceable. For instance, under Article 21, the right to life has been extended to cover the rights to free legal assistance, a dignified existence, education, and employment.
• In PIL instances where the petitioner cannot provide all pertinent evidence due to its volume or because the parties are socially or economically disadvantaged, courts have established commissions to gather information on the facts and present it to the bench.

Ambit of the PILs in India

• The public interest, in general, is the main focus of the PILs in India, as discussed. In the many years of its history, it has witnessed legal battles over issues including environmental protection, prisoner's rights, and road safety. PILs are typically filed in the cases listed below:
• litigations for the protection of fundamental rights, mainly Article 21
• The government's agenda, operations, and decision-making
• issues with labour exploitation
• female rights
• Religious and caste concerns
• Governance concerns and how local, state, and union governments operate
• environmental concerns
• The cultural and historical issues
• other issues with broad significance

Importance of PIL

• PIL allows people to exercise their rights and seek redress for any wrongs.
• In a participatory democracy, citizens have the right to file petitions and participate in the execution of justice. It is cheaper than the usual process because only a minimal fixed court fee is involved.
• PIL encourages protecting an individual, community, or group in similar situations. In the Samatha case in Andhra Pradesh, the SC forbade private firms from leasing forest and tribal territory to outsiders.
• By enabling anybody or any group with the required resources to file petitions on behalf of people who are unable or lack the means to do so, justice is made more democratic. For instance, the SC was informed about the issue of hospitals refusing to treat accident victims by a regular citizen by the name of Parmanand Katara.
• A governmental authority's judgments may be challenged through judicial review. For instance, the SC quashed arrests made under Section 66A of the IT Act for publishing content online in the Shreya Singhal case.
• It helps establish the checks and balances required to hold the government accountable for inappropriate executive or legislative actions and can be applied to make the wrongdoer pay for their actions.
• Litigants are capable of focusing on and producing solutions to important societal problems.
• It helps the judiciary monitor and keeps a check on jails, geriatric facilities, and orphanages. As an illustration, the court in the Hussainara Khatoon case discharged convicts who had already served the maximum sentence allotted for their offence.

Issues with the PIL

• The courts waste time on ineffective petitions, and prolonged delays in PIL case settlements may render many influential rulings essentially academic.
• The Judiciary is acting outside the bounds of its power and needs to check on how effectively its instructions are being followed.
• In certain cases, the court demonstrated its unwillingness to exercise legislative authority; in others, it gave detailed guidelines for creating policy. PILs are reportedly given more priority than cases pending for a long time.
• PIL petitions add to the Judiciary's already excessive caseload, which is made worse by pending cases. PIL has changed from public interest litigation to private interest litigation because people pursuing personal complaints abuse it instead of supporting public interests.
• Political parties routinely file petitions with little political impact. A decision may significantly impact the rights of one group on one subject. For instance, the decision to shut down a polluting industry can affect how personnel can support themselves.

Way Forward

• Since the PIL may affect the rights of those not parties to the case, the court must always consider this while deciding the best course of action.