Evolution of PIL in common law vs. Civil law systems
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has evolved differently in common law and civil law jurisdictions. In common law countries like India and the U.S., PIL has become a key mechanism for advancing social justice and enhancing access to justice for marginalized groups. Indian courts, in particular, have adopted a proactive stance, allowing individuals or groups to file cases on behalf of those unable to do so. The judiciary has interpreted constitutional provisions broadly, shifting the burden of proof in cases like bonded labor, thus facilitating easier access to justice for disadvantaged groups. This collective approach marks a significant departure from traditional, individualistic litigation. As a result, public interest cases in civil law systems are less flexible and more procedural, reflecting the differences in legal philosophy between the two systems.
The remarkable contributions of Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer played a pivotal role in the judicial revolution of the 1980s, enabling any Indian citizen, consumer group, to approach the Supreme Court for legal remedies in cases where the interests of the general public is at risk. Moreover, public interest cases could be filed without the burden of paying substantial court fees, which is typically required in private civil litigation.[1] The recent development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the country has revealed certain shortcomings and challenges.
Judiciary and public interest litigation in India: landmark decisions
One of the landmark cases in the early development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India was Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar[2]. This case arose from a series of articles published in the Indian Express, which highlighted the deplorable conditions of under-trial prisoners in Bihar. These prisoners had been incarcerated for periods longer than the maximum sentences allowed for the offenses they were accused of. In response, an advocate filed a writ petition, bringing the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court. The Court recognized the advocate’s right to file the petition on behalf of the prisoners and acknowledged the significance of the issue. As a result, the Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial was a fundamental right under the protection of life and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case set a critical precedent for future PILs and established the importance of timely justice for under-trial prisoners.
Following this, two prominent law professors also filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court, drawing attention to various legal violations that they argued infringed on Article 21.[3] Their petitions addressed issues such as inhumane conditions in protective homes, the lengthy delays in court trials, trafficking of women, the exploitation of children for homosexual purposes, and the failure to pay bonded laborers. The Supreme Court accepted the professors’ standing to represent the vulnerable and issued several guidelines and orders to improve their situation. This series of PILs demonstrated the Court’s willingness to intervene in matters affecting the rights of marginalized and oppressed sections of society, further expanding the scope of access to justice through PILs.
Another significant case in the realm of PIL involved journalist Sheela Barse,[4] who raised concerns about the treatment of women prisoners in police jails in Bombay. She alleged that these women were victims of custodial violence. The Supreme Court took serious note of her claims and appointed the Director of the College of Social Work in Bombay to investigate the conditions in the city’s central jail. He was tasked with interviewing the female prisoners to determine whether they had been subjected to any form of torture or mistreatment. Based on the findings of this investigation, the Court issued a series of directives aimed at safeguarding the rights of female prisoners. These included a mandate that female detainees should only be held in female-specific lock-ups, guarded by female constables, and that they should only be interrogated in the presence of a female police officer. These rulings were instrumental in ensuring greater protection for women in custody and set crucial legal precedents regarding the treatment of female prisoners.[5]
In the case of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,[6] a prisoner wrote a letter to a Supreme Court judge, reporting a brutal assault carried out by a Head Warder on another inmate. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and, in response, issued several directives. While doing so, the Court expressed its views on the matter, underscoring the importance of addressing such grievances within the justice system.
“…technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding for habeas corpus if the basic facts are found”.
A significant boost to public interest litigation (PIL) was provided by a seven-judge bench in the landmark case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India[7]. This judgment recognized that bar associations could file writ petitions in the interest of the public. In this specific case, the Court acknowledged the legitimate concern of these associations regarding the arbitrary transfer of High Court judges, which posed a threat to judicial independence.
In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[8], the Indian Supreme Court emphasized the importance of moving away from conventional judicial processes to “forge new tools” that would provide substantive meaning to the fundamental rights of a large segment of the population. In the area of environmental protection, several significant rulings have stemmed from actions initiated by the prominent environmentalist M.C. Mehta. Mehta has filed petitions that have led to crucial judicial directives aimed at addressing various environmental issues.
Comparative analysis between India and the US
In India, the concept of PIL was popularized in the 1980s, aiming to empower marginalized communities by allowing individuals to file petitions on behalf of those unable to seek justice themselves. The Indian judiciary has been proactive in interpreting standing rules, allowing broader access to the courts.
This approach has led to landmark judgments addressing issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, thus transforming PIL into a vital mechanism for societal change. In contrast, the United States has a more restrictive approach to standing in public interest cases. While the U.S. legal system recognizes the importance of public interest law, it traditionally requires a direct injury to the plaintiff, limiting the scope of who can bring cases to court.
However, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and various non-profit legal advocacy groups have effectively utilized strategic litigation to promote civil rights and social justice. The emphasis in the U.S. on individual rights, while foundational, often results in a more adversarial system that can hinder collective action for broader societal issues. Despite these differences, both countries recognize the importance of public interest litigation as a means to enhance access to justice. India’s broader approach allows for greater inclusivity, while the U.S. system’s focus on individual rights encourages rigorous legal challenges.
Ultimately, the evolution of PIL in both nations reflects their respective legal cultures and societal values, underscoring the ongoing struggle for justice and equity.
Conclusion
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India and public law litigation in the United States serve as tools for addressing social justice issues, yet they differ considerably in their approaches and applications. In India, PIL emerged in the 1980s to empower the underprivileged, allowing individuals to file cases on behalf of those who cannot do so due to socio-economic barriers. The Indian judiciary actively promotes PIL to foster social justice and accountability.
Conversely, the U.S. concept of public interest litigation, rooted in the civil rights movement, involves lawyers or dedicated individuals seeking social change through court-ordered reforms. Indian courts adopt a liberal approach, permitting informal communications to be treated as petitions, thus minimizing technical barriers and ensuring justice is accessible, especially to marginalized groups. PIL in India has tackled various issues, such as environmental protection, gender justice, and labor rights, leading to substantial societal impact and active judicial policy shaping. Overall, India’s approach is more inclusive and flexible, while the U.S. system is structured and focused on individual rights.
References
- Clark D. Cunningham, ‘Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court: A study in the light of American experience’, 29 Journal of Indian Law Institute 494 (1987)
- Justice P.N. Bhagwati, ‘Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation’, 23 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 561 (1985)
- M.P. Singh (ed.), V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, 11th edn. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2008)
[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., Public Interest Litigation,http://www.corecentre.co.in/Database/Docs/DocFiles/PIL.htm
[2] (1980) 1 SCC 81; See Upendra Baxi, ‘The Supreme Court under trial: Undertrials and the Supreme Court’, (1980) Supreme Court Cases (Journal section), at p. 35
[3] Upendra Baxi (Dr) v. State of U.P., (1983) 2 SCC 308
[4]Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96
[5] Address by Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India, Growth of Public Interest Litigation In India
[6] (1978) 4 SCC 494
[7] (1981) Supp. SCC 87
[8] A.I.R 1984 S.C. 802
Author: Akhila Anand is a student at the School of Law, CHRIST.
