Famous PIL Cases In India

PILs are designed to enforce and safeguard the interests of the public as a whole. It is a tool that empowers Indian citizens to approach the apex court on behalf of a community, or parties facing injustice, or violation of fundamental rights. PILs are a crucial methodology for bringing changes in society and bringing intervention by the judiciary in matters of public importance.

What Is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means a case or petition filed before a court to protect, safeguard or enforce public interest. Public interest means the interest or right belonging to the society, a particular class of the community or a group of people. PILs are filed to resolve a problem affecting the legal rights of a community or the public at large.

PILs are filed in the courts to safeguard group interests, not individual interests. It can be filed only in the Supreme Court of India or the State High Courts. PILs have become a powerful tool to enforce the legal obligation of the legislature and executive. The primary objective behind PILs is to provide justice to all and promote the welfare of the people.

The Supreme Court (SC) of India saw over 1,13,904 PILs being filed in 2021 itself. Even with such a large number of PIL filings, such cases constituted less than 1% of such cases that the HC handles. Such PILs cover a large number of issues pertaining to public accountability, human rights violations, etc.

Process To File A Public Interest Litigation

Below are the steps to file a PIL:

Step 1: The person filing the PIL (known as the petitioner) must understand the issues concerning people at large by researching and consulting all the individuals or groups related to the issue.

Step 2: The petitioner must collect all the necessary information and documents as evidence to support the PIL petition.

Step 3: Draft the PIL petition containing the name of the court, name and address of the petitioner and opposite party (respondent), the article under which it is filed, facts of the case (facts and information of the issue concerning public) and the relief sought from the court.

Step 4: Send a copy of the PIL petition to the respondent.

Step 5: File the PIL petition with the Supreme Court or High Court along with the proof of sending the petition copy to all the respondents. If the petitioner files the PIL in High Court, he/she must submit two copies of the petition to the court and in the case of the Supreme Court, the petitioner must submit five copies of the petition to the court.

Landmark PIL Cases

Here are some landmark cases related to PIL:

Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar on 9 March, 1979

This case was filed by a journalist on behalf of a group of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been in jail for long periods without a trial. It remarked on the brutal conditions the prisoners had to undergo and the long periods of detention in the Indian judicial system. The Supreme Court has recognized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right that is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court’s involvement resulted in the liberation of thousands of undertrial prisoners and opened the door for future judicial reforms aimed at guaranteeing timely justice.

Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan on 13 August, 1997

This PIL was filed by a women's rights group following the brutal gangrape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Rajasthan who was targeted for trying to stop child marriage. The Vishaka Guidelines were established by a judgement of the Supreme Court in this case, thereby creating guidelines that were the platform for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. The guidelines were later included in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. This case was instrumental in both the awareness of workplace harassment and was the reason for just kidding policy changes in Employment Protection of Women Employees.

MC Mehta vs. Union of India on 20 December, 1986

Environmental lawyer MC Mehta filed this PIL to address the severe pollution of the Ganga River due to industrial discharge and sewage. The Supreme Court issued several directives to the government to take action against polluting industries and to implement measures to clean and protect the river. This case led to the creation of the Ganga Action Plan, which aimed to reduce pollution and restore the ecological balance of the river. MC Mehta's persistent efforts through various PILs have made a significant impact on environmental jurisprudence in India.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India on 16 December, 1983

This PIL was filed by Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an organization working for the liberation of bonded labourers, to address the exploitation and inhumane conditions of bonded labourers in the stone quarries of Haryana. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, acknowledged the existence of bonded labour as a violation of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court issued directives for the identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. This case highlighted the plight of bonded labourers and led to stricter enforcement of laws against bonded labour practices.

Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation on 10 July, 1985

This PIL was filed by journalists Olga Tellis and others on behalf of pavement dwellers in Mumbai who were facing eviction by the municipal authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that evicting pavement dwellers without providing them alternative accommodation would violate their fundamental rights. This case underscored the importance of providing adequate housing and protecting the rights of the urban poor.

Javed vs. State of Haryana on 30 July, 2003

In this case, the constitutionality of a population control provision governing the panchayat election was challenged. The Haryana Provision disqualified persons having more than two children from holding certain offices in panchayats. The court mainly emphasised the problem of population explosion as a global and national issue at the expense of protecting human rights. The court held that the Haryana Provision was well-defined and based on a clear objective to popularise family planning.

Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India on 28 August, 1989

This case addressed the refusal of immediate medical treatment to an accident victim, leading to his death. The Supreme Court ruled that both government and private hospitals must provide prompt medical aid to preserve life, without waiting for legal formalities. This judgment reinforced the right to emergency medical care as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that accident victims receive immediate treatment without delay. This landmark ruling has been instrumental in ensuring timely medical assistance for accident victims and has set a precedent for the prioritization of life-saving care over procedural requirements.

Conclusion

PIL has played a huge role in addressing important societal issues and shaping the jurisprudence of our country India. PILs serve as a crucial bridge between the law and social reality, ensuring that the legal system remains responsive to the needs and concerns of the broader community. They continue to be an essential mechanism for holding authorities accountable and promoting a more just and equitable society.