PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AS TOOL FOR HELPING THE WEAKER SECTION, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Law

Download PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AS TOOL FOR HELPING THE WEAKER SECTION and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Law in PDF only on Docsity! PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AS A TOOL FOR HELPING THE WEAKER SECTIONS IN THE SOCIETY IN INDIA A] Introduction: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road Safety etc. Any matter where the interest of public at large is affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any Indian citizen against a State/Central Govt., Municipal Authorities, and not any private party. Public Interest Litigation is the new development as the traditional rule of locus standi which meant that the person who comes to the Court must show that he has himself suffered a legal injury, has been relaxed mainly to provide down-trodden, oppressed and exploited sections of society easy access to justice. Thus, any public-spirited person or social activist or social action organization may file petition or application for writ, order or direction in the High Court or Supreme Court. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Choudhary1, Public Interest Litigation has been defined as a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. In Sheela Barse v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in a Public Interest Litigation, unlike traditional dispute resolution mechanism, there is no determination or adjudication of individual rights. The proceedings in a Public Interest Litigation are intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory or sizeable segments of the society while owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economically disadvantages cannot themselves assert and quite often not even aware of those rights. B] Object: The public interest litigation aims to provide an effective remedy and to bring justice to the poor, weak and illiterate persons to enforce their rights and interests. 1 A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 892 2 A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2211 In some cases, the affected parties addressed letters directly in the name of the Judge of the Supreme Court and they used to convert the letters into the writ petitions. This practice has been criticized on the ground that there would be a danger of litigants choosing a Judge and in turn Judges choosing their litigants. To avoid this defect, now the practice developed by the Court is that the Judge passes on the letters to the Registrar for being dealt with according to the normal practice of the court. (b) NOBODY SHOULD BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE Sometimes Suo motu action has been taken by the Judges on the basis of newspaper’s reports. The Suo motu action by Judges based upon the newspapers has been criticized on the ground that thereby the Judge assumes the role of petitioner as well and, thus against the Judicial precept, ‘nobody should be a Judge in his own case’ i.e., Nemo Judex In Causa Sua. (c) PRIVATE MOTIVE It is also criticized on the ground that it can be misused for private motive or political ends. To avoid this defect, the Court has expressed the view that the person who moves the Court for judicial redress must be acting bonda fide with a view to vindicating the causes of Justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the Court shall not allow itself to be activated at the instance of such person and must reject it. To avoid the danger of persons dressing up their personal grievance in public interest garb, the Court has adopted the view that it is not meant for correcting individual wrong or injury. The view of the Court has been that as far as possible it should not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of a third party. (d) INCREASE IN LITIGATION Public Interest Litigation has also been criticized on the ground that it would result in the tremendous increase in the litigation. (e) UNPREDICTABLE It has been criticized on the ground that it would develop uncertainty as to the admission of the petition for hearing. It is said that there is no guideline as to the cases which should be admitted and the cases which should not be admitted. Due to this, the Public Interest Litigation has become unpredictable. To avoid this defect, the Supreme Court has framed certain guidelines for entertaining letters/petitions as Public Interest Litigation. 4. Role of PIL in development of Right to Information Right to information has emanated from the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. The judiciary treats it as a part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). If democracy means a government of the people by the people and for the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process. Their effective participation can be ensured only if they have sufficient information with them. In the case of LIC of India v. Manubhai D. Shah5, the Court held that the community is entitled to know whether or not the requirement of the statute is complied with by LIC (a State) in its functioning. 5. Public Interest Litigation and Writ Jurisdiction A writ is just a written command given out by a legal authority like a court. It can be to enforce an action, or stopping an action from happening. Now, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a form of writ, with just one specification that the matter is related to the general well-being of the public instead of a particular litigant. The writ jurisdiction of the superior Court plays an important role in the public interest litigations. The public interest litigation petitions are usually filed praying the Court to issue suitable writ. The Supreme Court and High Court both can issue writs. A Public Interest Litigation [PIL] can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution.  There are five types of Writs - Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo warranto. 1. Habeas Corpus "Habeas Corpus" is a Latin term which literally means "you may have the body." The writ is issued to produce a person who has been detained , whether in prison or in private custody, before a court and to release him if such detention is found illegal. 2. Mandamus Mandamus is a Latin word, which means "We Command". Mandamus is an order from the Supreme Court or High Court to a lower court or tribunal or public authority to perform a public or statutory duty. This writ of command is issued by the Supreme Court or High court when any government, court, corporation or any public authority has to do a public duty but fails to do so. 3. Certiorari Literally, Certiorari means to be certified. The writ of certiorari can be issued by the Supreme Court or any High Court for quashing the order already passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. 4. Prohibition The Writ of prohibition means to forbid or to stop and is popularly known as ‘Stay Order’. This writ is issued when a lower court or a body tries to transgress the limits or powers vested in it. The writ of prohibition is issued by any High Court or The Supreme Court to any inferior court, or quasi-judicial body 5 A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2112 prohibiting the latter from continuing the proceedings in a particular case, where it has no jurisdiction to try. After the issue of this writ, proceedings in the lower court come to a stop. 5. Quo-Warranto The word Quo-Warranto literally means “by what warrants?” or “what is your authority”? It is a writ issued with a view to restrain a person from holding a public office to which he is not entitled. The writ requires the concerned person to explain to the Court by what authority he holds the office. If a person has usurped a public office, the Court may direct him to carry out any activities in the office or may announce the office to be vacant. Thus. High Court may issue a writ of quo-warranto if a person holds an office beyond his retirement age. D] Instances of Public Interest Litigation Cases: 1. Bonded Labour and other Labour: PIL cases have revealed the plight of labour classes and inactiveness on the part of the government in implementing the labour laws and provide opportunity to the Court to provide appropriate relief. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court held that non-enforcement by the State of the provisions of labour laws e.g. Minimum Wages Act, the Employment of Children Act, etc. is violative of the workers’ right to live with human dignity as enshrined in Article 21 2. Child Welfare: The Supreme Court has delivered several judgements for the child welfare. In, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu7, the Court held that the employment of children in the match factories directly connected with manufacturing process should not be permitted. The minimum wages should be fixed and special facilities for providing quality of life of children be provided apart from basic diet. In the case of Kamala Devi Chattopadhay v. State of Punjab8, Smt. Kamala Devi Chattopadhyay petitioned to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution complaining against the detention of several children in the Central Jails at Ludhiana and Amritsar, consequent to their being rounded up in the then recent army action within the precincts of the Golden Temple, Amritsar. It was stated that they were kept in the jails along with the convicts. After examining the report of the District Judge, Ludhiana, the Supreme Court directed to release all of them, as the Court did not find any jurisdiction for their detention. 6 A.I.R. 1982 SC 1473 7 A.I.R. 1999 SC 41 8 (1981) 1 SCC 563