[AIR 2004 SC 561]
Para 39 The Courts exercising their power of judicial
review found to its dismay that the poorest of the poor, depraved, the
illiterate, the urban and rural unorganized labour sector, women, children,
handicapped by 'ignorance, indigence and illiteracy' and other down trodden
have either no access to justice or had been denied justice. A new branch of
proceedings known as 'Social Interest Litigation' or 'Public Interest
Litigation' was evolved with a view to render complete justice to the
aforementioned classes of persons It expanded its wings in course of time. The
Courts in pro bono publico granted relief to the inmates of the prisons,
provided legal aid, directed speedy trial, maintenance of human dignity and
covered several other areas. Representative actions, pro bono publico and test
litigations were entertained in keeping with the current accent on justice to
the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to by pass the
real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural shortcomings.
Para 40: The Court in pro bono publico proceedings
intervened when there had been callous neglect as a policy of State, a lack of
probity in public life, abuse of power in control and destruction of
environment. It also protected the inmates of persons and homes. It sought to
restrain exploitation of labour practices.
Para 41: The court expanded the meaning of life and
liberty as envisaged in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It jealously
enforced Art. 23 of the Constitution. Statutes were interpreted with human
rights angle in view. Statutes were interpreted in the light of international
treatises, protocols and conventions. Justice was made available having regard
to the concept of human right even in cases where the State was not otherwise
apparently liable.
Para 42: The people of India have turned to courts more
and more for justice whenever there had been a legitimate grievance against the
State's statutory authorities and other public organizations. People come to
courts as the final resort, to protect their rights and to secure probity in
public life.
Para 43: Pro bono publico constituted a significant
state in the present day judicial system. They, however, provided the dockets
with much greater responsibility for rendering the concept of justice available
to the disadvantaged sections of the society. Public interest litigation has
come to stay and its necessity cannot be overemphasized. The courts evolved a
jurisprudence of compassion. Procedural propriety was to move over giving place
to substantive concerns of the deprivation of rights. The rule of locus standi
was diluted. The Court in place of disinterested and dispassionate adjudicator
became active participant in the dispensation of justice.
Para 44: But with the passage of time, things started
taking different shapes. The process was sometimes abused. Proceedings were
initiated in the name of public interest litigation for ventilating private
disputes. Some petitions were publicity oriented.
Para 45: A balance was, therefore, required to be
struck. The courts started exercising greater care and caution in the matter of
exercise of jurisdiction of public interest litigation.
Para 46: The Court insisted on furnishing of security before
granting injunction and imposing very heavy costs when a petition was found to
be bogus. It took strict action when it was found that the motive to file a
public interest litigation was oblique.
Para 47: The decisions rendered by this Court in
different types of public interest litigations are varied.
Para 48: The principles evolved by this Court in this
behalf may be suitably summarized as under:
(i) The Court in exercise of powers under Art.
32 and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by
any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged
position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The
Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such
disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional
promises.
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement
of fundamental rights of large number of public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties
and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treat a letter or a telegram
as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law
relating to pleadings.
(iii) Whenever injustice is meted out to a
large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on
Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay
Gandhi and Another V/s. Miss Rani Jethmalani, it was held:
"2, Assurance of a fair trial is the
first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for
the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the
hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of
legal services or like mini-grievances Something more substantial, more
compelling, more imperilling, from the point of view of public justice and its
attendant, environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of
transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be
myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's grounds on
this touch-stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the
right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate
where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice
should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the
circumstances."
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is
relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on
behalf of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate
the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any
constitutional or legal right.
(v) When the Court is prima facie satisfied
about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to
the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the government from
raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition.
(vi) Although procedural laws apply on PIL
cases but the question as to whether the principles of res judicata or
principles analogous thereto would apply depend on the nature of the petition
as also facts and circumstances of the case.
(vii) The dispute between two warring groups
purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be agitated as a
public interest litigation.
(viii) However, in an appropriate case,
although the petitioner might have moved a Court in his private interest and
for redressal of the personal grievances, the Court in furtherance of the
public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of affairs of
the subject of litigation in the interest of justice. (.
(ix) The Court in special situations may
appoint Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the
allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public
institution taken over by such committee.
Para "61: It is only when courts are
apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action
on when basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such
acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court,
should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its
jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and
miseries of the needy, the under dog and the neglected. I will be second to
none in extending help when such is required. But this does mean that the doors
of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have
some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants."
In Janata Dal V/s. H.S. Chowdhary and Others
(supra), this Court opined :
"109: It is thus clear that only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will along have a locus
standi and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy,
suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal
gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration.
Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the
court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the
threshold."
The Court will not ordinarily transgress into
a policy. It shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction
while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated.
In Narmada Bachao Andolan V/s. Union of India
& Others, it was held
"229: It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of
their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision
Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of
project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of
policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy
decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the
undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are
not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution.
Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution
of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means
overrun in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after
its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the
ground of latches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and
could have approached the court at that time. Just because a petition is termed
as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will
not apply. Latches is one of them
232. While protecting the rights of the people from being
violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not
transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly
clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily whenever the
executive has sought to impinge upon the court's jurisdiction."
(x) The Court would ordinarily not step out of
the known areas of judicial review. The High Courts although may pass an order
for doing complete justice to the parties, it does not have a power akin to
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
(xi) Ordinarily the High Court should not
entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning
constitutionality or validity of a statute or a statutory rule.
Para 49: In M.C. Mehta V/s. Kamal Nath, it was held:
"20. The scope of Art. 142 was considered
in several decisions and recently in Supreme Court Bar Association V/s. Union
of India JT 1998 (3) SC 184 by which the decision of this Court in Vinay
Chandra Mishra, JT 1995 (2) SC 587 was partly overruled, it was held that the
plenary powers of this Court under Art. 142 of the Constitution are inherent in
the Court and are "COMPLEMENTARY" to those powers which are
specifically conferred on the Court by various statutes. This power exists as a
separate and independent basis of jurisdiction apart from the statutes The
Court further observed that though the powers conferred on the Court by Article
142 are curative in nature, they cannot be construed as powers which authorise
the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant. The Court further
observed that this power cannot be used to "supplant" substantive law
applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the Court. Article 142,
even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice
where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing
with a subject and thereby achieve something indirectly which cannot be
achieved directly."
Para 50: This Court in Balco Employees' Union (Regd.)
(supra) succinctly opined:
"Public interest litigation, or PIL as it
is more commonly known, entered the Indian judicial process in 1970. It will
not be incorrect to say that it is primarily the judges who have innovated this
type of litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was
intended to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the
people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantageous
position and were unable to seek legal redress were required to be espoused.
PIL was not meant to be adversarial in nature and was to be a cooperative and
collaborative effort of the parties and the court so as to secure justice for
the poor and the weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to
protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended to mean
nothing more than what words themselves said viz. "litigation in the
interest of the public".
While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases
connected with the relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society
and in areas where there was violation of human rights under Art. 21, but with
the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres. Prof. S.
B. Sathe has summarised the extent of the jurisdiction which has now been
exercised in the following words :
"PIL may, therefore, be described as
satisfying one or more of the following parameters. These are not exclusive but
merely descriptive : - Where the concerns underlying a petition are not
individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people (bonded labour,
undertrial prisoners, prison inmates). - Where the affected persons belong to
the disadvantaged sections of society (women, children, bonded labour,
unorganised labour etc.). - Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid
exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the children of the
prostitutes). - Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of
the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the judiciary,
existence of grievances redressal forums). - Where administrative decisions
related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardize people's
right to natural resources such as air or water."
There is, in recent years, a feeling which is
not without any foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to
become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a
tendency to be counterproductive. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs
It was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the
disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited
person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty,
helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court
for relief. There, have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse
of PIL Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which
PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the court. This
aspect has come up for consideration before this Court and all we need to do is
to recapitulate and re- emphasize the same "
Para 51: We do not intend to say that the dicta of this
Court in Balco Employees Union (supra) contains the last words. But the same
may be considered to be in the nature of guidelines for entertaining public
interest litigation.
Para 52: Incidentally, on administrative side of this
Court, certain guidelines have been issued to be followed for entertaining
letters/ petitions received by this Court as public interest litigation.
Important Links
Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.
https://www.litigationplatform.com/
Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment