Public interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law to protect the "Public Interest". Any matter where the interest of the public at large is affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, Construction hazards, etc.

The expression 'Public Interest Litigation' has been borrowed from American jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups like the poor, racial minorities, unorganized consumers, citizens who were passionate about environmental issues, etc.

PIL is not defined in any statute or any Act. It has been interpreted by judges to consider the intent of the public at large. It is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the court's satisfaction that the petition is being filed for public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body.

Some of the matters that are entertained under Public Interest Litigation are Neglected Children, Bonded Labour matters, Atrocities on Women, Non-payment of minimum wages to workers, exploitation of casual workers, food adulteration, Environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, Maintenance of heritage and culture, etc.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is introduced in a court of law not by the aggrieved party but by a private party or by the court itself.

• PILs have become a potent tool for enforcing the legal obligation of the executive and the legislature.
• The chief objective behind PILs is ensuring justice for all and promoting the welfare of the people.
• It is generally used to safeguard group interests and not individual interests, for which Fundamental Rights have been provided.
• The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have the right to issue PILs.
• The concept of PILs stems from the power of judicial review.
• The concept of PILs has diluted the principle of Locus Standi, which implies that only the person/party whose rights have been infringed upon can file petitions.

It has most ideally and commonly been used to challenge the decisions of public authorities by judicial review, to review the lawfulness of a decision or action, or a failure to act, by a public body.
PILs have played an important role in India's polity. They have been responsible for some landmark judgments in India such as the banning of instant triple talaq, opening up the doors of the Sabarimala and the Haji Ali shrines to women, legalizing consensual homosexual relations, legalizing passive euthanasia, and so on.

Procedure to File PIL in India

Any Indian citizen or organization can move the court for a public interest/cause by filing a petition:

• In the SC under Article 32[1]
• In the High Courts under Article 226[2]

A letter may be considered a writ petition by the court, and action may be taken. The court must be convinced that the writ petition complies with the following requirements: the letter is addressed by the person who was wronged, a public-spirited person, or a social action group for the enforcement of legal or constitutional rights to anyone unable to approach the court for redress due to poverty or a disability. If the court is pleased with the case, it may also act based on press reporting.

In the well-known "Hussainara Khatoon" [3]case, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition in 1979 that resulted in the release of around 40,000 undertrial prisoners from Patna's prisons. Hingorani practiced law. This matter was brought before a bench chaired by Justice P N Bhagwati in the Supreme Court. Hingorani's winning lawsuit has earned her the title of "Mother of PILs." Since the court allowed Hingorani to continue a petition in which she lacked personal standing, PILs have become an indispensable part of Indian jurisprudence.

Justice Bhagwati made significant contributions to the elucidation of the PIL concept. He also considered common correspondence from people with public views as writ petitions, and he did not insist on following formalities in the process. Among the first judges in the nation to accept PILs were Justices Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer.

Significance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India

The original purpose of PILs has been to make justice accessible to the poor and marginalized groups.

• It is an important tool to make human rights reach those who have been denied rights.
• It democratizes access to justice for all. Any citizen/agency who is capable can file petitions on behalf of those who cannot or do not have the means to do so.
• It helps in judicially monitoring state institutions like prisons, asylums, protective homes, etc.
• It is an important tool in judicial review.

Criticism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India
PILs are also being used as advertising tools. People file unnecessary petitions, which takes up the judges' time. Others have also used them for political purposes. They overburden the judicial system. Even in situations when the petitions are eventually denied, the courts take their time and carefully evaluate the petitions before dismissing them.

Way Forward with Public Interest Litigation

1. The court should not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain political objectives.
2. The PIL activists should be responsible and accountable.
3. The court must be careful to see that the petitioner must be acting bona fide and not for personal gain.
4. In shaping the relief, the court must take into account its impact on those public interests.

Since it is an extraordinary remedy available at a cheaper cost to all citizens of the country, it should not be used by all litigants as a substitute for ordinary ones or as a means to file frivolous complaints.

Current Affairs related to India
Since Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is one of the most accessible means of pursuing legal action, PILs are frequently featured in the news in India.

See the following for the most recent PIL news:
A public interest lawsuit has been filed in the Indian Supreme Court, requesting that the Indian government arrange for the rescue and return of Indian migrants who are stuck in Gulf countries.
The Supreme Court of India has received a petition asking it to issue directives to States, local self-government authorities, and their municipal authorities to protect the rights of sanitation workers, who are also vital service providers, during the national lockdown following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Landmark PILs of INDIA

Vishaka & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.[4]
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped in 1992 as part of a campaign against child marriage. Despite multiple attempts to seek justice, she filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, filed by Naina Kapur, a lawyer who had attended her criminal trials. Kapur challenged sexual harassment in the workplace against the State of Rajasthan, its Women & Child Welfare Department, the Department of Social Welfare, and the Union of India. The Vishakha judgment, later known as the Vishaka judgment, recognized sexual harassment as a criminal offense and released guidelines for employers. The judgment has promoted greater enforcement of women's rights and broader application of international law at the high court level, making it a "path-breaking" and "powerful legacy" of the PIL case.

MC Mehta Vs. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leakage Case)[5]
The 1985 MC Mehta v. Union of India case concerned the oil leak from Delhi's Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd., which forced the firm to close and relocate. Like the Bhopal Gas Disaster, the case had a big impact on the environmental movement and helped develop the concept of absolute liability. The 'Absolute Liability Principle' was established by the Supreme Court of India, which stipulates that industries involved in risky operations that result in accidents that endanger people or the environment would be held fully accountable. This case, which found a firm fully liable for the gas leak regardless of its defense and stated damage, is a crucial part of the history of the Indian judiciary. The case also set an example in laying strict security measures for all industries.

Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra[6]
Pioneer journalist and activist Sheela Barse spearheaded several public interest lawsuits before the Indian Supreme Court, concentrating on the issue of custodial assault against female inmates in Bombay police lock-ups. The court decided that mistreating female inmates might be justified and that it could be viewed as a breach of their rights as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court published guidelines for safeguarding prisoners' rights and directed social workers to report any maltreatment of female inmates in jails.

The court further mandated that only female police officers or constables be present while questioning female suspects. The Ministry of Home Affairs released the Model Prison Manual in 2016 to standardize prison management and improve the condition of prisoners.

Parmanand Katara vs UOI [7]
This case makes it to the list of landmark cases because of the number of lives that have been saved after the PIL was made. The case dealt with hospitals reluctant to attend accidents and legal cases. The spark was created in the mind of Parmanand after he came to know about the story of a scooterist who met with an accident and was unable to get treatment in the nearby hospitals. This case ensured that the hospital's ultimate goal should be saving a life, and not escaping from troubles. The court gave complete freedom to hospitals to attend an emergency case that came to them without worrying about legal troubles.

S.P. Gupta vs UOI [8]
It was determined in this case that attorneys have the right to seek a writ for public interest litigation (PIL) under the doctrine of Locus Standi. This seminal case altered the meaning of Locus Standi, permitting attorneys to file PILs. PILs are essential for encouraging public involvement in a range of areas, such as human rights, the environment, and administration. PILs may favor private interests above public ones, according to critics, but the question is when we should accept this choice.

Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (Rlek) Vs State Of U.P[9]
The conflict between growth and conservation was brought to light in India's first environmental public interest litigation (PIL) case, which pitted impacted locals against wealthy limestone contractors, industrialists, and the government. The 1986 Environment Protection Act was passed as a result of the lawsuit. After winning the lawsuit, the youth-led group RLEK brought life back to the slopes and abandoned mines.

No matter whether a polluting unit complies with the Air Pollution Act or not, citizens may initiate a complaint against it once the Supreme Court orders its closure. In addition, the court banned mining activities and established a commission to evaluate how mines affect the environment. The court stressed that maintaining the ecosystem is a duty shared by both nations and individuals.

Exploring the Possibilities:
A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court to change the five-year graduation for a law degree into a three-year law graduation course directly after school. The current LL.B course is available only for graduates, and the three-year law degree course is available only for graduates. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has moved the PIL, arguing that students can easily study 15-20 subjects in a three-year course, which is unreasonable and arbitrary, violating Article 14[10] and Article 21[11] of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioner cites examples of late legal stalwarts Ram Jethmalani and Fali S Nariman who completed their law degrees at 21 years. The petitioner argues that the unreasonable 05-year length of the law course has been set under pressure from college management to make the most money from the course. The PIL questions why law colleges cannot give Bachelor of Law degrees without a Bachelor of Art or Bachelor of Business Administration, as a Bachelor of Law is a graduation course.

Conclusion
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal action filed in a court to protect the public interest, such as pollution, terrorism, road safety, and construction hazards. It is not defined in any statute or act but is interpreted by judges to consider the intent of the public at large. PILs can be filed by a private party or the court itself, and have become a potent tool for enforcing the legal obligation of the executive and legislature.

They have played an important role in India's polity, with landmark judgments such as the banning of instant triple talaq, opening of Sabarimala and Haji Ali shrines to women, and legalizing consensual homosexual relations. PILs have become indispensable to Indian jurisprudence, making justice accessible to the poor and marginalized groups, democratizing access to justice, and helping in judicial review. However, PILs have recently evolved into a promotional tool, with criticisms pointing to a need for responsible and accountable PIL activists and a focus on public interests.

The Vishakha judgment, a landmark case in India, recognized sexual harassment as a criminal offense and set guidelines for employers. The MC Mehta vs. Union of India case established the 'Absolute Liability Principle', holding industries responsible for hazardous activities causing harm to the environment or people through accidents. Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra ruled that the bad treatment of female prisoners is defensible and that the ill-treatment can be considered a violation of the rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Parmanand Katara vs UOI dealt with hospitals reluctant to attend accidents and legal cases, ensuring the ultimate goal should be saving lives. S.P. Gupta vs UOI established that lawyers have a Locus Standi to file a writ for Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

End Notes:

1. INDIA CONST. art.32
2. INDIA CONST art.226
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1979) AIR 1369
4. Vishka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
5. MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 176
6. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) AIR 378
7. Paramanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) SC 2039
8. S.P Gupta v. Union of India, (1) SCC 87
9. Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) v. State of U.P, (1985) AIR 652
10. INDIA CONST. art.14
11. INDIA CONST. art.21