Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to litigation conducted to protect the public interest and shows the availability of justice for socially disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Judge P. N. Bhagwati. This is a relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi. Prior to the 1980s [When?], the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India dealt only with disputes brought by parties directly or indirectly affected by the defendant. It has heard and decided cases only within its original jurisdiction and its appellate jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court has begun to allow cases [when?] due to public interest disputes, meaning that even people who are not directly involved in the case can take matters of public interest to court. It is the privilege of the court to deal with pila`s application. “The parameters within which PIL can be maintained have been defined. The mandate, motive and objective of the petitioner must obviously and obviously go too far. Otherwise, the application may be rejected at the threshold,” the decision reads. When asked why it was skeptical of a large number of PIL, the bank spoke on behalf of the Supreme Court when it stated that “the judiciary must be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of the public interest lies no ugly private malevolence, self-interest and/or publicity seeking.

This court (Supreme Court of India) must not allow his case to be misused for oblique considerations by masked ghosts, who sometimes watch from behind. The court closed many industries and only allowed them to reopen after a controlled removal of pollution in the Ganges basin. [8] The Supreme Court dealt with a letter from two professors from delhi University; he called for the application of constitutional law to detainees in a shelter in Agra who lived in inhuman and degrading conditions. In the case of Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, 1982 (2) SCC 583: 1982 SCC (Cree) 511: AIR 1983 SC 339, the court treated as an application a letter from the Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh, Bihar, to a judge of the Court. In Citizens for Democracy, by its President v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486: 1995 (2) KLT SN 74: 1995 (3) CSC 743: 1995 CSC (Cree) 600: AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court dealt with a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to a court judge alleging human rights violations by prisoners of the Prevention of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (TADA) Act; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. [6] [7] The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) is consistent with the principles enshrined in Section 39A(a) of the Indian Constitution to protect and ensure social justice by law. Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could appeal to the courts for justice. After the emergency period, the Supreme Court appealed to the people and developed a means for any person in the public (or NGO) who turned to the court to appeal in cases where the public interest is at stake.

Bhagwati and Judge V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PIL to court. [4] Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as a regular legal case; There have been cases where letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been heard as PIL. [5] A controversial study by sociologist Hans Dembowski concluded that PIL have succeeded in holding official authorities accountable to NGOs. Although Dembowski also found some effect at the local level, PIL cases dealing with major environmental complaints in the Kolkata urban agglomeration did not address the underlying issues (such as inadequate urban planning). Dembovsk wrote about this in his book Taking the State to Supreme Court – Public Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere in Metropolitan India, originally published by Oxford University Press in 2001. However, the publisher stopped distribution for ignoring legal proceedings initiated by the Calcutta Supreme Court. The author, who claimed to have never been officially informed by the court, published the book online at the German NGO Asia House. [9] [10] Public interest litigation provides a more complete description of the right to equality, life and personality guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution.

It also acts as an effective tool for change in society or social well-being. Through litigation in the public interest, any public or person can remedy the situation on behalf of the oppressed class by introducing a PIL. [8] In a speech in September 2008, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern about the misuse of PIL: “Many will say that, as with so many things in public life, we may have gone too far with PIL. Maybe a fix was needed, and we`ve been restoring some balance lately. [Citation needed] In a possible instrument against frivolous PIL, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice (supported by Bhagwati and Iyer) has prepared a law to regulate PIL. In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition concerning the condition of prisoners held in Bihar Prison, whose prosecution was pending before the courts. The petition was signed by prisoners in Bihar prison and the case was filed with the Supreme Court of India in the bench headed by Judge P.N. Bhagwati. The motion was filed under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, and so the case was called Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. The Supreme Court ruled that prisoners should receive free legal advice and prompt hearings. As a result, 40,000 prisoners were released from prison.

After that, many similar cases were registered with the Supreme Court. In SP Gupta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has defined the term “public interest dispute” in the Indian context. “At this time, it should be clear and obvious that this court does not approve of any approach that would encourage motions filed for strange motives based on savage and reckless accusations by individuals, i.e. pretentious,” noted a bank of judges B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar in its decision. The bank overturned an April 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh cancelling the services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) official employed at the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. The Supreme Court`s decision concerned a public interest petition filed by S.

Mangati Gopal Reddy, who claimed in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the loss of “$300 worth of gold” from the temple and should not remain in office. The Supreme Court concluded that the Supreme Court ruled against the defendant with little information about Reddy himself.