← The hardest concepts in Indian law
In one breath
In public interest litigation a person or group may go to the Supreme Court or a High Court on behalf of people who cannot easily come themselves, because the Court has relaxed the old rule that only the person injured may sue. The Court still insists that the petitioner act in good faith and for a public cause, not for private gain or publicity.
The picture
The fire bell
When a house is on fire, any passer-by may ring the fire bell. Nobody asks whether the passer-by owns the house, since the point of a bell is to bring help to people who cannot get it themselves. But the bell is not a toy, and a person who rings it falsely, or to annoy a neighbour, is turned away and perhaps punished.
Traditional standing required the petitioner to show a personal injury. In S P Gupta the Court held that where a legal wrong is done to a person or class who are poor or otherwise unable to go to court, any member of the public acting in good faith can bring the matter. In Hussainara Khatoon a letter about prisoners awaiting trial for years was treated as a petition. The Court has also used PIL to appoint commissions to find facts, to give continuing directions and to enforce rights such as those of bonded labourers in Bandhua Mukti Morcha.
Where the picture stops working
A bell warns, but it does not decide what must be done, and some critics say that the Court has gone from warning to running parts of the administration without being accountable. The picture also leaves out the Court’s own guard against false alarms: it can dismiss petitions brought for private interest, publicity or political advantage, and may impose costs. Open standing is not the same as an open door for every complaint.
How it really works
- 1Identify the person or group whose rights are said to be harmed and ask why they cannot approach the court themselves, for example poverty or ignorance.
- 2Ask whether the petitioner is acting bona fide and for a public purpose, not for personal gain, publicity or a political motive.
- 3The court may accept a letter or a newspaper report as the petition, then check the facts, often through a commission or the State’s own reply.
- 4If the claim is made out, the court may give a remedy, which can include continuing directions that it supervises.
- 5The court may dismiss a petition that is a private dispute dressed up as public interest, and it may order the petitioner to pay costs.
Why people get it wrong
- Believing that anyone may sue on any ground. The public interest must be genuine and the petitioner’s motive is examined.
- Assuming PIL changes the law. It changes who may bring the case and how, not the rights that are being enforced.
- Thinking a PIL is always a criminal prosecution. The Court has generally held that strangers cannot start a prosecution, so the relaxed standing is mainly in writ matters.
- Forgetting that the usual rules, such as laches and the availability of an alternative remedy, still bear on the Court’s discretion.
A worked example
The facts are invented
A newspaper reports that dozens of women in a State-run home have been held for years without any court hearing. A lawyer who has no connection with the women writes to the Supreme Court enclosing the report.
The Court may treat the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. The lawyer is acting for people who cannot reach the court, and the claim is about personal liberty. The Court asks the State for a response and appoints a lawyer to visit the home. If the report is true, it orders the release of those wrongly held and gives directions for review of their cases. If the lawyer had been a rival who wanted to attack the home’s management for business reasons, the Court could refuse the petition and impose costs.
Try it
A person with no personal stake files a petition about the unlawful detention of a group of poor prisoners who cannot approach the court. How will the Court usually treat the petitioner’s standing?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81
- S P Gupta v Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161
- State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402
Where to go next
Dictionary
More hard concepts in India law
- The basic structure doctrine (Constitutional law)
- Equality and arbitrariness under Article 14 (Constitutional law)
- The golden triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 (Constitutional law)
- Pith and substance and the three lists (Constitutional law)
- Eclipse, severability and Article 13 (Constitutional law)
- Reasonable restrictions on free speech (Constitutional law)
- Essential religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 (Constitutional law)
- Writs under Articles 32 and 226 (Administrative and constitutional law)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. India has a written Constitution, central and State legislation, and a unified court system under the Supreme Court. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions, with the citations as they are usually given in the Supreme Court Cases and All India Reporter series. The criminal codes and the law of evidence were replaced by new statutes, so the pages on criminal law state the doctrine and the decisions and mostly leave out section numbers; check the current text of any statute you rely on. Personal laws differ by community. This is a study aid, not legal advice, and an Indian advocate should check anything you need to rely on.