Public interest litigation is the utilisation of the law to propel human rights and fairness, or raise issues of expansive public concern. It helps advance the reason for minority or hindered groups or people.
Public interest cases may emerge from both public and private law matters. Public law concerns the different guidelines and guidelines that oversee the activity of intensity by public bodies. Private law concerns those cases wherein an public body can't, and can be found in regions, for example, work law or family law.
Public interest litigation is most generally used to challenge the choices of public authorities by legal review. Judicial audit is a type of court continuing wherein an appointed authority surveys the legitimateness of a choice or activity, or an inability to act, by an open body. Judicial review is worried about whether the law has been accurately applied, and the correct strategies have been followed.
The traditional rule of “Locus Standii” that a person, whose right is infringed alone can file a petition, has been relaxed by the Supreme Court in its recent decisions. Now, the court permits public interest litigation in India at the instance of public spirited citizens for the enforcement of constitutional legal rights. Now, any public spirited citizen can move/approach the court for the public cause by filing a petition:
1. in Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution;
2. In High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution; and
3. in the Court of Magistrate under Sec.133, Cr. P.C.
It is essentially a new legal ambit in which court of law can initiate and enforce action to serve and secure significant public interest. This initiative of judicial activism has opened new horizons for the poor and the destitute. This is definitely an inexpensive medium of judicial consolation for the ones in need.
However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for a public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body. In cases the victim does not have the necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed on its own, or cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual.
1. In PIL vigilant citizens of the country can find an inexpensive legal remedy because there is only a nominal fixed court fee involved in this.
2. Further, the litigants can focus attention on and achieve results pertaining to larger public issues, especially in the fields of human rights, consumer welfare and environment.
1. The genuine causes and cases of public interest have in fact receded to the background and irresponsible PIL activists all over the country have started to play a major but not a constructive role in the arena of litigation.
Many of the PIL activists in the country have found the PIL as a handy tool of harassment since frivolous cases could be filed without investment of heavy court fees as required in private civil litigation and deals could then be negotiated with the victims of stay orders obtained in the so-called PILs.'
2. The flexibility of procedure that is a character of PIL article in India has given rise to another set of problems. It gives an opportunity to opposite parties to ascertain the precise allegation and respond specific issues.
3. The credibility of PIL process is now adversely affected by increasing misuse of PIL by people agitating for private grievance in the grab of public interest and seeking publicity rather than public cause.
In a bid to regulate the abuse of PIL article, the apex court itself has framed certain guidelines in reference with the governance, management and disposal of PILs. The court must be careful to see that the petitioner who approaches it is acting bonafide and not for personal gain, private profit or political or other oblique considerations.
The court should not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to satisfy malicious or personal political intentions. There may be cases where the PIL may affect the right of persons not before the court, and therefore in shaping the relief the court must take into account its impact on those must adopt procedure ensuring sufficient notice to all interests likely to be affected.
Even though it is very much essential to curb the misuse and abuse of PIL article, any move by the government to regulate the PIL results in widespread protests from those who are not aware of its abuse and equate any form of regulation with erosion of their fundamental rights. Thus, intervention of the Supreme Court is required.
