Overview: Impact of PIL on the Society in India

INTRODUCTION

Public interest litigation (PIL) is understood as litigation which can be bought by not only the aggrieved party but also by any person in the interest of the public when there is a violation of the rights of the victim. PIL is the most effective power given to the common people to protect their constitutional rights through judicial activism. PIL is helpful in the cases where the victim is unable to access litigation either on the basis of lack of resources or lack of freedom to move to court. The courts take suo moto cognizance in the petitions where the public interest is involved.

PIL in India was initially started in 1976 by Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai [1] and Hussainara Khatoon v. the State of Bihar [2] was the first reported PIL case where the trial court ordered for the release of more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners whose right to a speedy trial and justice was violated. Further Justice Krishna Iyer has elaborated on the need for liberalization of Locus Standi in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India [3]. The concept of PIL in India has witnessed a new era of the movement led by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [4].

PIL has bought new perspective and developments to various legal concepts like the right to life, judicial activism, directive principles of state policy, right to liberty, right to equality, various other matters of public importance etc. For instance, in the case of Javed v. State of Haryana [5], the petitioners challenged the action of disqualifying them from holding any office in panchayat with the reason that they have more than two children. Though the court did not do a critical evaluation on the impact of the contested provision on family planning, it described the provision as “well-defined”, “founded on intelligible differentia”, and based on a clear objective to popularize family planning.

RIGHT TO LIFE

The Supreme Court has held that rape is violative of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which includes the right to live with dignity in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [5] wherein the Apex Court has directed the accused to pay Rs.1000 per month as interim compensation to the rape victim during the pendency of the criminal trial. The Supreme Court has the power to enforce the fundamental rights against the individuals and private bodies and take cognizance either by suo moto as PIL in case of violation of such rights.

RIGHT TO EQUALITY

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [6], a PIL was filed by an NGO before the Supreme Court questioning the conditions of bonded labourers working in the quarries in Haryana. The court in response has ruled a host of protective and welfare-oriented labour legislations, including the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act and the Minimum Wages Act. It was held by the court that in the case where a person or a group is unable to raise litigation for injury caused on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position then any public-spirited person acting bona fide and in the public interest can bring an action against the condemners in the court of law under Article 32 and Article 226. It was added that fundamental rights should not be linked to the economic status of the individual.

CHILD RIGHTS

In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India [7], a PIL was filed by the petitioner who was a dedicated social worker challenging the illegal detention of children below the age of 16 years in jails. She requested the court to release these children and also sought a direction that the district judges should supervise jails within their jurisdiction to ensure the well-being of children who are in custody. The Supreme Court not only ruled that the children in jails need special treatment but also urged for setting up juvenile homes for the remand of children in jails. It also directed that there should be surprise visits to the police lock-ups by a judge of the City court appointed by the Principal judge.

RIGHTS OF LGBTQ COMMUNITY

In a PIL filed by the National Legal Services Authority [8] asking to recognize the transgenders as a third gender and requesting to pass directions to ensure jobs, reservations and such other facilities viz., for issuance voter id, passport, license etc, the Supreme Court has declared them as a third gender and also added that they would be entitled to job reservations considering them as socially and economically backward class. It was observed by the Apex Court that this issue is not just medical or social but also an issue of human rights. It also declared that everyone should be provided with equal opportunity to grow and attain their potential, irrespective of caste, religion or gender.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India [9], it was ruled that if the right to speedy trial of an accused is violated then the charge or conviction shall be quashed. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar [10], the trial court ordered for the release of more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners whose right to a speedy trial and justice was violated. In this case, a habeas corpus petition was filed and it was later discovered that alarmingly large number of people are kept in jail for many years ranging from three years to ten years and were deprived of their right to liberty and speedy trail as they were all undertrial prisoners. It was clearly observed by the court that the fairness under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution impaired if it doesn’t provide the right to the speedy trial. It was added that in such case the court would grant any necessary relief for the person to afford proper justice and to secure the constitutional rights of the prisoners. Justice P.N. Bhagwati stated that the state cannot deny the constitutional right to a speedy trial of the accused on the basis of lack of financial resources.

In another judgment, in the case of “Common Cause” a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors. [11], the Supreme Court held that the pendency of criminal proceedings for longer periods amounts to oppression and further gave direction for the release on bail and the discharge of the accused in such cases.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

In the case of Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka [12], a PIL was filed by a U.P resident challenging the notification issued by the Karnataka state government which permits private medical colleges to charge higher fees to students who didn’t get admission through the government quota. It was held by the Supreme Court that charging a capitation fee directly violates the right to education as implied in the right to life, the right to live with dignity and the right to equal protection of the law.

In Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [13], while dealing with the constitutional status of the right to education the court has established the relevant constitutional provisions to make education accessible and affordable to every child until the age of fourteen by granting the right to free education.

JUSTICE TO WOMEN

In Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan [14], the Supreme Court observed that sexual harassment leads to a clear violation of the fundamental constitutional right to life, liberty, equality, non-discrimination and the right to carry out any occupation. In this case, a woman who tried to stop the marriage of one year old in Rajasthan as part of a government campaign against child marriage was gang-raped. The guidelines passed in the judgment, directed towards employers, included a definition of sexual harassment, a list of steps for harassment prevention and a description of complaint procedures to be strictly observed in all workplaces for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality. This case has proved to have a revolutionary effect on society in curbing workplace harassment of women.

CONCLUSION

Public interest litigation in the modern era has proved to make the fundamental and constitutional rights more accessible to all human beings irrespective of caste, creed, religion, gender, economic status etc., by relaxing the rule of Locus Standi. Jurisprudence in Public Interest Litigations has shaped up the Indian Constitution by getting modern interpretation for Constitutional articles and other fundamental rights. Public interest litigation has bought good results in dealing with the issues of prisoner rights, exploited children, humiliated inmates of protective women’s home, tortured under trials and female prisoners etc.

ENDNOTES

1. 1976 AIR 1455, 1976 SCR (3) 591.
2. 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532.
3. 1981 AIR 344, 1981 SCR (2) 52.
4. AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365.
5. 1996 AIR 922, 1996 SCC (1) 490.
6. 1984 3 SCC 161.
7. 1986 3 SCC 596.
8. Dhananjay Mahapatra, Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as third gender, Times of India (April 15, 2014).

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-recognizes-transgenders-as-third-gender/articleshow/33767900.cms

1. 1986 3 SCC 596.
2. 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532.
3. 1996 CRI. L.J. 2380.
4. 1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658.
5. 1993 AIR 217, 1993 SCR (1) 594, 1993 SCC (1) 645, JT 1993 (1) 474, 1993 SCALE (1) 290.
6. AIR 1977 SC 3011.

Key Words- PIL, Article 21, Right to life, S.P. Gupta case., Justice Krishna Iyer, right to a speedy trial, Vishaka case, Hussainara Khatoon case, judicial activism.

Profile of the author- Sri Vaishnavi.M.N. is a third-year student in DSNLU, Visakhapatnam and has a keen interest in criminal law, constitutional law, human rights and legal developments.

FAQs -

1. What is the first reported PIL case?

A. Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar is the first reported PIL case where the trial court ordered for the release of more than 40,000 undertrial prisoners whose right to a speedy trial and justice was violated.

2.What are the public interest litigations which bought changes in the accessibility of right to education?

A. The two PIL cases that have bought changes in the accessibility of right to education Mohini Jain v. the State of Karnataka and Unni Krishnan J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the former case the Supreme Court declared that capitation fee directly violates the right to education as implied from the right to life, the right to live with dignity and the right to equal protection of the law while in the latter the Supreme Court has established the relevant constitutional provisions to make education accessible and affordable viz., grant right to free education to every child until the age of fourteen.