“Social justice is the
signature tune of Constitution of India”
-V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
“Whenever
there is a public wrong or a public injury caused by an Act or omission of the
state or a public authority which contrary to the Constitution or the law, any
member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can
maintain an action for redressal of such wrong or public injury”[1]
Social action litigation is the
litigation filed in situations concerning the society or we can say public at
large. This concept is common by what we call as ‘Public Interest Litigation’
or ‘PIL’. This concept was introduced by the Justice P.N. Bhagwati in his
report on Legal Aid published in 1971[2], as:
“Even
while retaining the adversary system, some changes may be effected whereby the
judge is given a greater participatory role in the trial so as to place the
poor, as far as possible, on a footing of equality with the rich in
administration of justice.”
The onset of PIL is the key component
in the Indian Judicial System. It has enlarged the ambit of locus standi, and
the existing adversarial system of justice. With the arrival of PIL any person
who is or is not concerned with the litigation can file a petition under
Articles 226 and 32 of Constitution of India in High Court and Supreme Court
respectively. But such litigation can be instituted only when it involves a
matter concerning public interest or a social cause of utmost importance. In
India first PIL was filed in the case of Hussainara Khatoon[3].
Also, it is not necessary to
institute a proper application/ petition for institution of matter under Article
226 and 32 (of Indian Constitution) in the Court. A suit can also be instituted
by a letter, any article in newspaper and this is known as the ‘Epistolary
jurisdiction’. This dimension was first acquired in the case of Sunil Batra v.
Delhi Administration[4]
by the Apex Court. In this, case it was initiated by a letter that was written
by a prisoner lodged in jail to a Judge of the Supreme Court. The prisoner
complained of a brutal assault committed by a Head Warder on another prisoner.
The Court treated that letter as a writ petition, and, while issuing various
directions, opined that: “…technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment
to the court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding for
habeas corpus if the basic facts are found”.
In the case of Parmanand Katara v.
Union of India[5],
the Apex Court considered an application by an advocate that highlighted a news
item titled "Law Helps the Injured to Die" published in a national
daily, The Hindustan Times. The petitioner highlighted the difficulties faced
by persons injured in road and other accidents in availing urgent and
life-saving medical treatment, since many hospitals and doctors refused to
treat them unless certain procedural formalities were completed in these
medico-legal cases. The Supreme Court directed medical establishments to
provide instant medical aid to such injured people, notwithstanding the
formalities to be followed under the procedural criminal law.
PIL is a strategy that has evolved
through ‘Judicial Activism’ in the Western countries. Problems brought under
PIL relate to a much wider spectrum of social injustice needing an
extra-ordinary remedy to undo them and because of this reason Prof. Upendra
Baxi prefers to call it as Social Interest Litigation. Some of the problems
tackled through this remedy relate to illegal detention[6],
bonded labour[7],
unorganised labour[8],
pavement dwellers[9],
environmental pollution[10],
personal liberty[11],
atrocities on women[12],
inhuman treatment of children[13],
etc.
Besides all the positive effects of
this remedy there is one of the set criticism for the concept is that it
detracts from the constitutional principle of ‘separation of powers’ by letting
the Courts to arbitrarily impede with policy choices made by the legislature
and pass the orders that may be tough for administrative authorities to
execute.
[1] Justice P.N. Bhagwati
[2]
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/8%5B1%5D.10.08_singapore_-_growth_of_public_interest_litigation.pdf
[3] Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81
[4] (1978) 4 SCC 494
[5] AIR 1989 SC 2039
[6] Hussainaira khatoon v. State of Bihar
[7] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI
[8] PUDR v. UOI
[9] Olega Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
[10] M.C. Mehta v. UOI
[11] Maneka Gandhi v. UOI
[12] Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
[13] Sheela Barse v. UOI
