Shraddha Sharma (PIL)
Shraddha Sharma (PIL)
PIL refers to litigation undertaken to protect or enforce rights and interests that affect the public
at large, rather than those of specific individuals. It seeks to address societal issues such as
environmental degradation, corruption, public health, human rights violations, and administrative
inefficiencies.
The concept of PIL was first introduced in the United States in the 1960s, inspired by social
justice movements.
In India, it gained momentum during the late 1970s and early 1980s under the leadership of
Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who expanded the scope of judicial
activism.
Characteristics of PIL
1. Relaxed Locus Standi Rules :Unlike traditional litigation, where only the affected party
could approach the court, PIL allows Public-spirited individuals , Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) , Social activists to file cases on behalf of disadvantaged groups or in
matters of public importance.
2. Focus on Public Welfare: PIL seeks to address broader social, environmental, and
governance issues that affect the larger community rather than individual grievances.
3. Judicial Activism: The judiciary often adopts proactive measures to ensure justice, especially
when the legislature or executive fails in its duties.
4. Flexible Procedural Norms: The courts are more flexible in accepting petitions for PIL. They
allow petitions in the form of letters or informal applications and even accept oral complaints in
certain cases.
PIL is rooted in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which aim to establish a just
social order. It operates through the enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Part III), especially:
Scope of PIL
1. Environmental Protection: Cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India have addressed air
pollution, water pollution, and industrial hazards.
2. Human Rights: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) highlighted the plight of
undertrial prisoners.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) focused on bonded laborers.
3. Women's Rights: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) led to guidelines for preventing
workplace sexual harassment.
4. Public Health and Safety: PILs have tackled issues like medical negligence, food safety,
and hazardous waste disposal.
5. Corruption and Governance Failures: Cases have exposed scams, misuse of power, and
inefficiencies in governance.
Advantages of PIL
1. Access to Justice: Provides a platform for vulnerable and underprivileged groups to seek
redressal.
3. Social Transformation: Promotes public awareness and drives social and legal reforms.
2. Judicial Overreach: Excessive judicial intervention in policy matters can disrupt the balance
of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
3. Delay in Justice: Overburdening the judiciary with PILs may delay the resolution of other
important cases.
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Addressed the rights of undertrial prisoners
languishing in jail for prolonged periods.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Broadened the concept of locus standi and judicial
transparency.
3. M.C. Mehta Cases: A series of cases filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta that focused
on pollution control, including the cleaning of the Ganga River and regulation of hazardous
industries.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Led to the creation of guidelines to prevent sexual
harassment at workplaces.
5. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Addressed the exploitation
of laborers in construction projects.
Conclusion
Public Interest Litigation has been a powerful tool for ensuring justice, protecting public rights,
and holding authorities accountable in India. While it has contributed significantly to legal and
social reforms, it must be exercised responsibly to prevent misuse and overburdening of the
judiciary. PIL remains an important mechanism for promoting constitutional ideals and fostering
social justice in a democratic society.