0% found this document useful (0 votes)

32 views141 pages

Pil Highlighted Files

Uploaded by

Yuvraj Garg

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

32 views141 pages

Pil Highlighted Files

Uploaded by

Yuvraj Garg

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 141

Date and Time: Monday 23 September 2024 9:55:00 PM IST

Job Number: 234194241

Documents (100)

1. [245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’

Client/Matter: -None-
2. [245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’
Client/Matter: -None-
3. [245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
4. [245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
5. [245.003] Improving access to justice
Client/Matter: -None-
6. [245.003] Improving access to justice
Client/Matter: -None-
7. [245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society
Client/Matter: -None-
8. [245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society
Client/Matter: -None-
9. [245.005] Court intervention
Client/Matter: -None-
10. [245.005] Court intervention
Client/Matter: -None-
11. [245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases
Client/Matter: -None-
12. [245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases
Client/Matter: -None-
13. [245.007] Scope of public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
14. [245.007] Scope of public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
15. [245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
16. [245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
17. [245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries
Client/Matter: -None-
18. [245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries
Client/Matter: -None-
19. [245.010] Generally

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Client/Matter: -None-
20. [245.010] Generally
Client/Matter: -None-
21. [245.011] Introduction
Client/Matter: -None-
22. [245.011] Introduction
Client/Matter: -None-
23. [245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine
Client/Matter: -None-
24. [245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine
Client/Matter: -None-
25. [245.013] Necessity
Client/Matter: -None-
26. [245.013] Necessity
Client/Matter: -None-
27. [245.014] Enforcement of collective rights
Client/Matter: -None-
28. [245.014] Enforcement of collective rights
Client/Matter: -None-
29. [245.015] Specific legal injury to others
Client/Matter: -None-
30. [245.015] Specific legal injury to others
Client/Matter: -None-
31. [245.016] Injury to public interest
Client/Matter: -None-
32. [245.016] Injury to public interest
Client/Matter: -None-
33. [245.017] Qualified standing
Client/Matter: -None-
34. [245.017] Qualified standing
Client/Matter: -None-
35. [245.018] Enforcing public duty
Client/Matter: -None-
36. [245.018] Enforcing public duty
Client/Matter: -None-
37. [245.019] The earlier conservative position
Client/Matter: -None-
38. [245.019] The earlier conservative position
Client/Matter: -None-
39. [245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing
Client/Matter: -None-
40. [245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing
Client/Matter: -None-
41. [245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Client/Matter: -None-
42. [245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing
Client/Matter: -None-
43. [245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’
Client/Matter: -None-
44. [245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’
Client/Matter: -None-
45. [245.023] Tests for determining standing
Client/Matter: -None-
46. [245.023] Tests for determining standing
Client/Matter: -None-
47. [245.024] Abuse of standing
Client/Matter: -None-
48. [245.024] Abuse of standing
Client/Matter: -None-
49. [245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished
Client/Matter: -None-
50. [245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished
Client/Matter: -None-
51. [245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances
Client/Matter: -None-
52. [245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances
Client/Matter: -None-
53. [245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases
Client/Matter: -None-
54. [245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases
Client/Matter: -None-
55. [245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions
Client/Matter: -None-
56. [245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions
Client/Matter: -None-
57. [245.029] Preconditions for case admission
Client/Matter: -None-
58. [245.029] Preconditions for case admission
Client/Matter: -None-
59. [245.030] Generally
Client/Matter: -None-
60. [245.030] Generally
Client/Matter: -None-
61. [245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds
Client/Matter: -None-
62. [245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds
Client/Matter: -None-
63. [245.032] Making litigants accountable

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Client/Matter: -None-
64. [245.032] Making litigants accountable
Client/Matter: -None-
65. [245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi
Client/Matter: -None-
66. [245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi
Client/Matter: -None-
67. [245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies
Client/Matter: -None-
68. [245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies
Client/Matter: -None-
69. [245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
70. [245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
71. [245.036] Maintainability of petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
72. [245.036] Maintainability of petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
73. [245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions
Client/Matter: -None-
74. [245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions
Client/Matter: -None-
75. [245.038] Letters as public interest petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
76. [245.038] Letters as public interest petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
77. [245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts
Client/Matter: -None-
78. [245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts
Client/Matter: -None-
79. [245.040] Insistence on regular petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
80. [245.040] Insistence on regular petitions
Client/Matter: -None-
81. [245.041] Letter petitions: some questions
Client/Matter: -None-
82. [245.041] Letter petitions: some questions
Client/Matter: -None-
83. [245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial
Client/Matter: -None-
84. [245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial
Client/Matter: -None-
85. [245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
Client/Matter: -None-
86. [245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures
Client/Matter: -None-
87. [245.044] Some instances
Client/Matter: -None-
88. [245.044] Some instances
Client/Matter: -None-
89. [245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets
Client/Matter: -None-
90. [245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets
Client/Matter: -None-
91. [245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure
Client/Matter: -None-
92. [245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure
Client/Matter: -None-
93. [245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct
Client/Matter: -None-
94. [245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct
Client/Matter: -None-
95. [245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice
Client/Matter: -None-
96. [245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice
Client/Matter: -None-
97. [245.049] Need for investigative litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
98. [245.049] Need for investigative litigation
Client/Matter: -None-
99. [245.050] When must a commission be appointed
Client/Matter: -None-
100. [245.050] When must a commission be appointed
Client/Matter: -None-

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2024 LexisNexis
[245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(1) GENERALLY

[245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’

The phrase public interest litigation’ is intended to mean litigation in the interest of public1. Public interest litigation
may be defined as some thing in which the public or the common community at large has some pecuniary interest
or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected2. It includes interest shared by the citizens
generally arising out of affairs of local states or national government3.

The expression ‘public interest’ is an elusive abstraction, that is, general social welfare or regard for social good.
The expression predicates interest of the general public in matters where a regard for social good is of the first
moment. In common parlance, it means an act beneficial to the general public4. Thus, a thing is said to be in public
interest where it is or can be made to appear to contribute to the general welfare of the community at large.

The expression ‘litigation’ means legal action including all proceedings under it, initiated in a court of law, with the
purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically, the expression public interest litigation means
a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public or general interest in which the public or a class
of community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liability are affected5.

1 Blacks’ Law Dictionary (6th edn).

2 Balco Employees’ Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333; Peoples for Democratic Rights v Ministry of Home
Affairs AIR 1985 Del 268 [LNIND 1985 DEL 126].

3 Blacks Law Dictionary (6th edn).

Page 2 of 2
[245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’

4 An action taken in public interest necessarily means an action taken for public purpose: Thakur Bahadur Singh v
Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 ALT 567.

5 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(1) GENERALLY

[245.001] ‘Public interest’ and ‘litigation’

1 Blacks’ Law Dictionary (6th edn).

Public interest may also be defined as one in which a class or community have a pecuniary interest or some interest by
which their legal rights or liabilities are affected: Stroud’s judicial dictionary.
Blacks’ Law Dictionary (6th edn).
2 Balco Employees’ Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333; Peoples for Democratic Rights v Ministry of Home Affairs
AIR 1985 Del 268 [LNIND 1985 DEL 126].
3 Blacks Law Dictionary (6th edn).
4 An action taken in public interest necessarily means an action taken for public purpose: Thakur Bahadur Singh v
Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 ALT 567.
5 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(1) GENERALLY

[245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation

Indian law has historically been strongly identified, both in theory and practice, with a tradition which has been
concerned with the rights and duties of individuals1. Until the arrival of public interest litigation, civil litigation was
patterned exclusively on traditional model2. The traditional conceptions of adjudication believe a suit to be a means
for settling the dispute between private parties concerning their private rights. It is a proceeding confined to the
parties, dealing with definite framework of facts requiring identification through principles codified by statute, with
the judge sitting over the contest as a mere passive neutral umpire3. It is now recognised that this tradition is
inadequate to cope with a wide range of problems arising out of inequality of means, opportunities and entitlements
in society. In public interest litigation, unlike traditional dispute revolution mechanism there is no determination or
adjudication or individual rights. While in ordinary conventional adjudications the party structure is merely bipolar in
public interest litigation this can be sprawling and amorphous4. In a public interest action, the proceedings cut
across and transcend these traditional forms and structures5. The grievance in a public interest action is generally
about the contents and conducts of government action in relation to constitutional and statutory rights of the
segment of the society and in certain circumstances, the conduct of government policies6.

1 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

3 See note 2.

4 Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) JT (3) 15 (the remedy in public interest litigation is essentially linked to and
limited by the logic of the array of the parties).

5 Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) JT (3) 15.

Page 2 of 2
[245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation

6 See note 5.

End of Document
[245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(1) GENERALLY

[245.002] Distinction between private and public interest litigation

1 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’
see [245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
3 See note 2.
4 Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) JT (3) 15 (the remedy in public interest litigation is essentially linked to and limited
by the logic of the array of the parties).
5 Sheela Barse v Union of India (1988) JT (3) 15.
6 See note 5.

End of Document
[245.003] Improving access to justice
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.003] Improving access to justice

Public interest litigation constitutes a relatively a new chapter in justice delivery system and has acquired big
significance in modern legal jurisprudence practiced by a court in many parts of the world1. It has been referred to
as a new dimension of a judicial process introduced by the Supreme Court of India to accomplish the social
revolution contemplated by the makers of the Indian Constitution2. It represents sustained efforts on the part of
judiciary in India to provide access to justice for the deprived and vulnerable sections of the Indian humanity3. The
courts exercising the power of judicial review found to its dismay that the poorest of the poor, deprived, illiterate,
urban and rural unorganised labour sector, women, children and those handicapped by ignorance, indigence and
illiteracy’ had either no access to justice or had been denied justice. Public interest litigation was evolved with a
view to render complete justice to the aforementioned classes of persons4. Representative actions, pro bono
publico and test litigation were entertained in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man5. Thus
seen, public interest litigation is an innovative strategy which has been evolved by the Supreme Court for the
purpose of providing easy access to justice to the weaker sections of Indian humanity. It is a powerful tool in the
hands of public-spirited individuals and social action groups for combating exploitation and injustice and securing
for the under-privileged segments of society their social and economic entitlements. It is a highly effective weapon
in the armoury of the law for reaching social justice to the common man6.

The courts have prescribed forms for pleadings in respect of writ petitions by way of an affidavit followed by petition
seeking the appropriate relief. These are part of the commonly called writ rules, which also lay down the form in
which the affidavit has to be drawn up and what it should contain7. Inspite of the writ rules prescribing the
procedures, a practice has grown in the courts to file a common affidavit containing several allegations seeking
different reliefs, without verifying the source of information and making verification by mere affirmation without
disclosing the source of information. The prescribed procedure in the writ rules has seldom been followed8.

In a case, it was held that the court would not be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Central
Government to appoint a commission to go into the charges of corruption against the respondents. However, it is
the right and the duty of the court to see that the ends of justice should not be allowed to be frustrated. However, at
the same time the court noted that it should exercise its discretion in moulding the relief in such manner as would
meet the situation, particularly in view of the fact that the comprehensive provisions of the Constitution of India
empower the high court to issue orders ‘for any other purpose’, apart from writs for the enforcement of any of the
fundamental rights9.
Page 2 of 2
[245.003] Improving access to justice

2 Patricin Mukhim v State of Meghalaya (1997) 2 Gau LT 218.

3 Colombia Journal of Transactional Law, Judicial Activism and Public interest Litigation’ p 23.

4 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale
401.

5 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Bhai Fazul Bhai [1979] 3 SCR 591. As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.210]. See also [245.147].

6 State of Himachal Pradesh v Parent of a student of Medical College, Shimla (1985) 3 SCC 169 [LNIND 1985 SC
123].

7 The rules also say that the deponent should disclose the source of information in respect of the fact pleaded in the
affidavit whether he has personal knowledge or whether he received the information from any source.

8 So far, to our knowledge, this court has not thrown out any writ petition on the ground of non-compliance with the writ
rules. That being the position, there is no valid reason to depart from such practice especially when it is a public interest
litigation. The court added that any such departure would be unjust and harsh: D Satyanarayan v N T Rama Rao AIR
1988 AP 144 [LNIND 1988 AP 2].

9 Ie under the Constitution of India art 226. See D.Satyanarayan v NT Rama Rao AIR 1988 AP 144 [LNIND 1988 AP
2]at 158.

End of Document
[245.003] Improving access to justice
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.003] Improving access to justice

1 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. See also S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982
SC 149 (it is a fascinating exercise for the court to deal with public interest litigation because it is a new jurisprudence
which the court is evolving, a jurisprudence which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative ability; the
frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide and new concepts and doctrines which will change the complexion of
the law and which were so far as embedded in the womb of the future, are beginning to be born).
2 Patricin Mukhim v State of Meghalaya (1997) 2 Gau LT 218.
3 Colombia Journal of Transactional Law, Judicial Activism and Public interest Litigation’ p 23.
4 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale 401
[LNIND 2003 SC 672].
5 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Bhai Fazul Bhai [1979] 3 SCR 591. As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.210]. See also [245.147].
6 State of Himachal Pradesh v Parent of a student of Medical College, Shimla (1985) 3 SCC 169 [LNIND 1985 SC 123].
7 The rules also say that the deponent should disclose the source of information in respect of the fact pleaded in the
affidavit whether he has personal knowledge or whether he received the information from any source.
8 So far, to our knowledge, this court has not thrown out any writ petition on the ground of non-compliance with the writ
rules. That being the position, there is no valid reason to depart from such practice especially when it is a public interest
litigation. The court added that any such departure would be unjust and harsh: D Satyanarayan v N T Rama Rao AIR
1988 AP 144 [LNIND 1988 AP 2].
9 Ie under the Constitution of India art 226. See D.Satyanarayan v NT Rama Rao AIR 1988 AP 144 [LNIND 1988 AP 2]
at 158.

End of Document
[245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society

Public interest litigation (‘PIL’) is generally justified on the basis of vast areas in our population of illiteracy and
poverty, social and economic backwardness and of insufficient awareness and appreciation of individual and
collective rights1. In this context, it is felt that the judiciary has to play a vital role not only in preventing and
remedying abuse and misuse of power but also in eliminating exploitation and injustice. The compulsion for the
judicial innovation of the technique of public interest action is the constitutional promise of a social and economic
transformation to usher in an egalitarian social order and a welfare state. For this purpose, it is necessary to make
procedural innovations in order to meet the challenges posed by the new role of an active and committed judiciary2.
The Supreme Court has identified these challenges as: (1) the expanded role of courts in the modern social state
and the new demands for judicial responsibility; (2) the rise and growth of varied systems of judicial review and the
legitimacy of such development; (3) the emergence of the notion of access to justice as a judicial answer to
egalitarian ideals and demands for effectiveness and the development of PIL; and (4) the role of courts in promoting
the legal system in the arena of PIL3. In fact, during the last four decades judicial activism has opened up new
dimension for judicial process and has given to new hope to the justice starved millions. The concept of public
interest litigation which has been and is being fostered by the judicial activism has become increasingly important in
the arena of constitutional and legal treatment for the unrepresented and under-represented4 These urges are
responsible for the birth of new judicial concepts and for expanding the horizons of juridical powers5.

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

2 P N Bhagwati J, ‘Social Action Litigation: The Indian Experience’.

3 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to judicial activism see
Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to judicial activism see
Page 2 of 2
[245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society

4 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. See also Patricin Mukhim v State of
Meghalaya (1997) 2 Gau LT 218 (public interest litigation are the mode of social engineering to provide justice to the
needy who can not look after their own interest).

5 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.004] Justification and challenges in Indian society

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
2 P N Bhagwati J, ‘Social Action Litigation: The Indian Experience’.
3 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to judicial activism see
Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to judicial activism see
4 Janta Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. See also Patricin Mukhim v State of Meghalaya
(1997) 2 Gau LT 218 (public interest litigation are the mode of social engineering to provide justice to the needy who
can not look after their own interest).
5 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.005] Court intervention
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.005] Court intervention

The spheres were the courts have intervened through public interest action have been categorised under the
following parameters:

(1) where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of
people that is bonded labour, under-trial prisoners, prison inmates;

(2) where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society, say, women, children, bonded
labour, unorganised labour and so on;

(3) where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation, inter-country adoption, the education of the
children of the prostitutes;

(4) where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions, that is,
independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums; and
(5) where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardise
peoples’ right to natural resources, such as air or water1.

1 Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333. These parameters are not exclusive but merely descriptive.

End of Document
[245.005] Court intervention
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.005] Court intervention

The spheres were the courts have intervened through public interest action have been categorised under the
following parameters:
(1) where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of
people that is bonded labour, under-trial prisoners, prison inmates;
(2) where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society, say, women, children, bonded
labour, unorganised labour and so on;
(3) where judicial law making is necessary to avoid exploitation, inter-country adoption, the education of the
children of the prostitutes;
(4) where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions, that is,
independence of the judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums; and
(5) where administrative decisions related to development are harmful to the environment and jeopardise
peoples’ right to natural resources, such as air or water1.

1 Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333. These parameters are not exclusive but merely descriptive.

End of Document
[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases

The seeds of the concept of the public interest litigation were sown in India in the year 1976, when the Supreme
Court observed that test litigation, representative actions, pro bono publico and like forms of legal proceedings are
in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man1. The concept of public interest litigation, since
then, has been developed by the higher courts by a series of outstanding decisions. The most important of
decisions include:

(2) enunciation by the Supreme Court of the right to speedy trial3, entertaining a letter petition and the right to
legal aid4;

(3) acceptance by the Supreme Court of a letter sent by two professors of a university seeking enforcement of
constitutional rights of the inmates of protective homes who were living in inhuman and degrading
conditions5;

(4) admission of a letter as a writ petition by relaxing the traditional rule of standing6.

(5) treating a letter sent by an organisation, demanding the release of bonded labourers as a writ petition in
the Supreme Court, whereupon several directions to the Central and state government were issued for the
release of bonded labourers and also for their future employment and betterment7;

(6) entertaining the petition filed by journalists organisations asserting the rights of pavement dwellers and
challenging the legality of the decision of a municipal corporation for demolishing the dwellings of the slum
hutments8; and

(7) enforcing the right against pollution9, a right to protection against industrial hazards, the right to human
dignity and the right to basic needs10, through a series of public interest actions.
Page 2 of 2
[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases

1 Mumbai Kagar Sabha v Abdul Bhai (1976) 3 SCC 832 [LNIND 1976 SC 84]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’
see [245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

2 Significantly, the court in the process enlarged the scope of habeas corpus by making it available to a prisoner for not
only for seeking his liberty but also for enforcement of constitutional right: Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1980) 3
SCC 488 [LNIND 1978 SC 215].

3 Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihars AIR 1979 SC 1360; Abdul Rehman Antulay v RS Nayak
(1992) 1 SCC 225 [LNIND 1991 SC 673].

4 M H Hoskot v State of Mahrashtra AIR 1978 SC 548 [LNIND 1978 SC 70].

5 Upendra Baxi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 Scale 1137.

6 Peoples Union for Democratic Life v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1743.

7 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

8 Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corpn [1985] Suppl (2) SCR 51, (1985) 3 SCC 545 [LNIND 1985 SC 215].

9 Attakoya Thangal v Union of India (1990) 1 Ker LT 580.

10 Kishan Patnaik v State of Orissa (1989) 1 Scale 32.

End of Document
[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases

(1) acceptance by the Supreme Court of a letter written by a prisoner complaining of inhuman torture being
subjected to another prisoner serving a life term; the court treated that letter as a writ petition and issued
the directions including suitable action against the officials of the concerned Union Ministry2;
(2) enunciation by the Supreme Court of the right to speedy trial3, entertaining a letter petition and the right to
legal aid4;
(3) acceptance by the Supreme Court of a letter sent by two professors of a university seeking enforcement of
constitutional rights of the inmates of protective homes who were living in inhuman and degrading
conditions5;
(4) admission of a letter as a writ petition by relaxing the traditional rule of standing6.
(5) treating a letter sent by an organisation, demanding the release of bonded labourers as a writ petition in
the Supreme Court, whereupon several directions to the Central and state government were issued for the
release of bonded labourers and also for their future employment and betterment7;
(6) entertaining the petition filed by journalists organisations asserting the rights of pavement dwellers and
challenging the legality of the decision of a municipal corporation for demolishing the dwellings of the slum
hutments8; and
(7) enforcing the right against pollution9, a right to protection against industrial hazards, the right to human
dignity and the right to basic needs10, through a series of public interest actions.

1 Mumbai Kagar Sabha v Abdul Bhai (1976) 3 SCC 832 [LNIND 1976 SC 84]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see
[245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
2 Significantly, the court in the process enlarged the scope of habeas corpus by making it available to a prisoner for not
only for seeking his liberty but also for enforcement of constitutional right: Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1980) 3
SCC 488 [LNIND 1978 SC 215].
Page 2 of 2
[245.006] Evolution of public interest litigation through landmark cases

3 Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihars AIR 1979 SC 1360; Abdul Rehman Antulay v RS Nayak (1992)
1 SCC 225 [LNIND 1991 SC 673].
4 M H Hoskot v State of Mahrashtra AIR 1978 SC 548 [LNIND 1978 SC 70].
5 Upendra Baxi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 Scale 1137.
6 Peoples Union for Democratic Life v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1743.
7 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
8 Olga Tellis v Bombay Muncipal Corpn [1985] Suppl (2) SCR 51, (1985) 3 SCC 545 [LNIND 1985 SC 215].
9 Attakoya Thangal v Union of India (1990) 1 Ker LT 580.
10 Kishan Patnaik v State of Orissa (1989) 1 Scale 32.

End of Document
[245.007] Scope of public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.007] Scope of public interest litigation

The recent trends of judicial pronouncements suggest that public interest litigation has traversed beyond the original
objective of providing access to judicial process to the poor and the disadvantaged. With the passage of time, a
movement to secure better access to the doctrine of the judicial review, as far as under the privileged are
concerned, has crossed over into the realm of policy-making and implementation1.

Under various public interest actions, the courts have granted relief to the inmates of the prisons, provided legal aid,
directed speedy trial and maintenance of human dignity and covered several other similar areas2. While public
interest litigation initially related mostly with cases connected with relief to the people and weaker sections of the
society and in areas where there was violation of human rights. However, with the passage of time, petitions have
been entertained in other spheres as well3. Courts, in pro bono publico proceedings intervened where there had
been callous neglect in a policy of state, lack of probity in public life, abuse of power and destruction of
environment4.

1 S Shyamaprasad Rao v Union of India (1998) 6 ALT 121 (DB). As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.210]. See also [245.147].

2 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale
401.

3 Balco Employees Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.

4 See note 2.
Page 2 of 2
[245.007] Scope of public interest litigation

End of Document
[245.007] Scope of public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.007] Scope of public interest litigation

1 S Shyamaprasad Rao v Union of India (1998) 6 ALT 121 (DB). As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.210].
See also [245.147].
2 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale 401
[LNIND 2003 SC 672].
3 Balco Employees Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
4 See note 2.

End of Document
[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation

(1) the court, in exercise of powers under the Constitution of India2, can entertain a petition filed by any
interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a
position to knock the doors of the court. The court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental
rights of such disadvantaged people, so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises3;

(2) in issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of large number of public vis-a-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the court can treat a letter or a telegram as a
public interest petition, upon relaxing the procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings4;

(3) whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the court will not hesitate in applying the right
to equality and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India as well as the
International Conventions of Human Rights to ensure a reasonable and fair trial5;

(4) the common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the courts to look into the grievances
complained, on behalf of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal
wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right6;

(5) when a court is called upon to give effect to the directive principies and fundamental duties, the court must
not shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so, it is the matter for the policy
making authorities; the least, a court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in
mind and irrelevancies excluded in decision-making7;

(6) when a court is prima facie satisfied about the violation of any constitutional right of a group of people
belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the government from raising the
question as to the maintainability of the petition8;

(7) the procedural laws do apply to public interest litigation cases; however, where the matter is of great
importance like environmental protection, the principles of res judicata do not apply; notwithstanding this, in
view of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the earlier judgment in a similar proceeding
Page 2 of 3
[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation

operates as res judicata in subsequent public interest case; whether or not res judicata applies depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case9;

(8) the dispute between two warring groups, purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be
agitated as a public interest litigation10;

(10) courts entertaining public interest litigation cannot reject a petition on the ground of non-availability of
sufficient material12;

(11) courts, in special situations, may appoint commissions or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into
the allegations and finding out facts and may also direct take over of management of a public institution by
such committee13;

(12) ordinarily, courts would not step out of the known areas of judicial review and transgress into a policy while
purporting to protect to the rights of the people from being violated ;
(13) ordinarily, high courts should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning
constitutionality or validity of a statute or statuary rules.

On review of major case law on public interest litigation, the High Court of Rajasthan has found that there are three
most important conditions to the examine whenever a public interest litigation is filed. These include: (1) there must
be a public injury caused by wrongful or ultra-vires acts or omission of the State or a public authority; and (2) it
should be for the enforcement of basic human rights of weaker sections of the community; and (3) it must not be a
frivolous litigation by persons having vested interest1?.

1 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale
401.

2 Ie under the Constitution of India arts 32 and 226.

3 S P Gupta v Union of India (1981) Supp SCC 87; Janata Dal vHS Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC
414]; Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; People’s Union for Democratic
Rights v Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494 [LNIND 1982 SC 135].

4 Charles Sobraj v Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 [LNIND 1978 SC 218]; Hussainara Khatoon
v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 810.

5 Mankeka Sanjay Gandhi v Rani Jethmalani AIR 1979 SC 468 [LNIND 1978 SC 342].

6 Fertilizer Corpn Kamagar Union v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 344; Balco Employees Union (Regd) v Union of India
(2002) 2 SCC 333.

7 See Sachidananda Pandey v State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 [LNIND 1987 SC 159].

8 Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
Page 3 of 3
[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation

9 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh ( 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504; Forward Construction Co
v Prabhat Mandal (Regd) Andheri (1986) 1 SCC 100 [LNIND 1985 SC 351]. As to the meaning of ‘res judicata’ see
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.154], [005.229] and [005.271].

10 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v Union of India (1989) Supp (1) SCC 251 [LNIND 1988 SC 550].

11 Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 [LNIND 1986 SC 503].

12 In such an event, the court has power under the Constitution of India arts 32 and 226 to appoint a commission and/or
a fact-finding body to assist the court: see Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC
564] 161; Rakesh Chandra v State of Bihar AIR 1989 SC 348 [LNIND 1988 SC 485]; Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board v M V Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812 [LNIND 1999 SC 65], (1999) 2 SCC 718.

13 Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; Rakesh Chandran Narayan v
State of Bihar (1989) Supp (1) SCC 644; Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v M VNayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718
[LNIND 1999 SC 65].

14 Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664 [LNIND 2000 SC 1361]. As to judicial review see
[005.210]. See also [245.147].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

15 Rajesh Rathi v State of Rajasthan RLW 1997(3) Raj 2070.

End of Document
[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation

The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in different type of public litigation are varied. However, some
principles evolved by the Supreme Court of India and the high courts are summarised as under1:
(1) the court, in exercise of powers under the Constitution of India2, can entertain a petition filed by any
interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a
position to knock the doors of the court. The court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental
rights of such disadvantaged people, so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises3;
(2) in issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of large number of public vis-a-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the court can treat a letter or a telegram as a
public interest petition, upon relaxing the procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings4;
(3) whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the court will not hesitate in applying the right
to equality and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India as well as the
International Conventions of Human Rights to ensure a reasonable and fair trial5;
(4) the common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the courts to look into the grievances
complained, on behalf of the poor, depraved, illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal
wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right6;
(5) when a court is called upon to give effect to the directive principies and fundamental duties, the court must
not shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so, it is the matter for the policy
making authorities; the least, a court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in
mind and irrelevancies excluded in decision-making7;
(6) when a court is prima facie satisfied about the violation of any constitutional right of a group of people
belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the government from raising the
question as to the maintainability of the petition8;
(7) the procedural laws do apply to public interest litigation cases; however, where the matter is of great
importance like environmental protection, the principles of res judicata do not apply; notwithstanding this, in
view of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the earlier judgment in a similar proceeding
operates as res judicata in subsequent public interest case; whether or not res judicata applies depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case9;
(8) the dispute between two warring groups, purely in the realm of private law would not be allowed to be
agitated as a public interest litigation10;
Page 2 of 2
[245.008] General principles evolved under public interest litigation

(9) although the petitioner might have moved a court in his private interest and for redressal of the personal
grievances, the court, in furtherance of public interest may treat it necessary to enquire into the state of
affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice11;
(10) courts entertaining public interest litigation cannot reject a petition on the ground of non-availability of
sufficient material12;
(11) courts, in special situations, may appoint commissions or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into
the allegations and finding out facts and may also direct take over of management of a public institution by
such committee13;
(12) ordinarily, courts would not step out of the known areas of judicial review and transgress into a policy while
purporting to protect to the rights of the people from being violated ;
(13) ordinarily, high courts should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning
constitutionality or validity of a statute or statuary rules.

1 Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v C K Rajan AIR 2004 SC 561 [LNIND 2003 SC 672], (2003) 6 Scale 401
[LNIND 2003 SC 672].
2 Ie under the Constitution of India arts 32 and 226.
3 S P Gupta v Union of India (1981) Supp SCC 87; Janata Dal vHS Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414];
Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; People’s Union for Democratic
Rights v Union of India (1982) 2 SCC 494 [LNIND 1982 SC 135].
4 Charles Sobraj v Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104 [LNIND 1978 SC 218]; Hussainara Khatoon v
Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 810.
5 Mankeka Sanjay Gandhi v Rani Jethmalani AIR 1979 SC 468 [LNIND 1978 SC 342].
6 Fertilizer Corpn Kamagar Union v Union of India AIR 1981 SC 344; Balco Employees Union (Regd) v Union of India
(2002) 2 SCC 333.
7 See Sachidananda Pandey v State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 [LNIND 1987 SC 159].
8 Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
9 Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh (1989 Supp (1) SCC 504; Forward Construction Co v
Prabhat Mandal (Regd) Andheri (1986) 1 SCC 100 [LNIND 1985 SC 351]. As to the meaning of ‘res judicata’ see
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.154], [005.229] and [005.271].

10 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v Union of India (1989) Supp (1) SCC 251.

11 Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 [LNIND 1986 SC 503].
12 In such an event, the court has power under the Constitution of India arts 32 and 226 to appoint a commission and/or a
fact-finding body to assist the court: see Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC
564] 161; Rakesh Chandra v State of Bihar AIR 1989 SC 348 [LNIND 1988 SC 485]; Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board v M V Nayudu AIR 1999 SC 812 [LNIND 1999 SC 65], (1999) 2 SCC 718 [LNIND 1999 SC 65].
13 Bandhua Mukti morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; Rakesh Chandran Narayan v State
of Bihar (1989) Supp (1) SCC 644; Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v M VNAYUDU (1999) 2 SCC 718 [LNIND
1999 SC 65].

End of Document
[245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(1.) INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries

The period of 1960s in the United States of America was important period of social embroilment during which
significant institution reforms took place, one of which was the evolution of public interest litigation. In the United
States, public interest law is seen as the efforts to provide legal representation to groups and interests that have
been unrepresented and under-represented in the legal process. These include not only the poor and the
disadvantaged, but ordinary citizens who cannot afford lawyers to represent them1.

The Council for Public Interest Law in the USA defined public interest litigation as the name that has been given to
efforts to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been
undertaken in the recognition that ordinary market place for legal services fails to provide such services to
significant segments of the population and to significant interest groups. Such groups and interests include
environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others2.

Though the concept of public interest litigation had its origin in USA, it has passed through various changes and
modifications in different common law based systems over the march of years. Legal aid programmes in Australia
and Canada have been restructured to serve the divergent aspects of public interest. Some of the countries have
gone to the extent of broadening its scope even beyond litigation and including many varieties of negotiations and
even non-litigating approaches3.

1 Mitchell Rogovin in the American Bar Association Journal, ‘Public Interest Law, The Next Horizon’ (1977) p 334. See
also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. As to the meaning of ‘public
interest’ see [245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

2 Report of the Council for the Public Interest Law, USA (1976).
Page 2 of 2
[245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries

3 Janda Dal v H S Chaudhury (1992) 4 SCC 305 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

1. INTRODUCTION

(2) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND JUSTICE DELIVERY

[245.009] Public interest litigation in other countries

End of Document
[245.010] Generally
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(1) INTRODUCTION

[245.010] Generally

All developed legal systems have to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of public interest,
that is, the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law and the
undesirability of encouraging the professional litigants and meddle-some interlopers to invoke the jurisdiction of the
courts in matters that do not concern them1.

1 Smith, ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (4 th edn).

End of Document
[245.010] Generally
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(1) INTRODUCTION

[245.010] Generally
All developed legal systems have to face the problem of adjusting conflicts between two aspects of public interest,
that is, the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law and the
undesirability of encouraging the professional litigants and meddle-some interlopers to invoke the jurisdiction of the
courts in matters that do not concern them1.

1 Smith, ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (4 th edn).

End of Document
[245.011] Introduction
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(2) TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

[245.011] Introduction

Traditionally, it was only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by a reason of actual or threatened
violations of a legal right or legally protected interest who could bring an action for judicial redress. This rule
translated itself into the following proposition of law:

(1) only the concerned person could take recourse to jurisdiction, whose own legal rights of person or property
were directly and substantially injured;

(2) where the person suffered along with other members of the public by administrative action, he could not
challenge the action in question, unless, he showed some special injury to himself, over and above what
others have suffered; and
(3) where the person challenging an administrative action is a total stranger, the court would not ordinarily
entertain his petition1.

However, this is a rule of ancient vintage, it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal system, and
public law had not yet been born2.

Where an applicant has a legal right or a legally protected interest the violation of which would result a legal injury
to him, there must be corresponding duties owned by other parties to the applicant. This rule, concerning locus
standi, thus postulates the right-duty pattern which is commonly to found in private law litigation3.

1 J M Desai v Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578 [LNIND 1975 SC 532].

2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

Page 2 of 2
[245.011] Introduction

3 See note 2.

End of Document
[245.011] Introduction
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(2) TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

[245.011] Introduction
Traditionally, it was only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by a reason of actual or threatened
violations of a legal right or legally protected interest who could bring an action for judicial redress. This rule
translated itself into the following proposition of law:
(1) only the concerned person could take recourse to jurisdiction, whose own legal rights of person or property
were directly and substantially injured;
(2) where the person suffered along with other members of the public by administrative action, he could not
challenge the action in question, unless, he showed some special injury to himself, over and above what
others have suffered; and
(3) where the person challenging an administrative action is a total stranger, the court would not ordinarily
entertain his petition1.

However, this is a rule of ancient vintage, it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal system, and
public law had not yet been born2.

1 J M Desai v Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578 [LNIND 1975 SC 532].

2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
3 See note 2.

End of Document
[245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(2) TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

[245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine

Despite the rigidity of the traditional doctrine, there are a few exceptions that were evolved by courts over the years.
These are: (1) a rate payer of a local authority is accorded standing to challenge a legal action of the local
authority1; (2) if a person is entitled to participate in the proceeding relating to the decision making process
culminating in the decision, he would have locus standi to maintain an action challenging the impugned decision2;
and (3) the statute itself may itself expressly recognise a standing even though no legal right or legally protected
interest of the applicant have been violated resulting in legal injury to him3.

1 For instance in KR Shenoy v Udipi Municipality AIR 1974 SC 2177 [LNIND 1974 SC 225]; Varadarajan v Salem
Muncipality AIR 1973 Mad 1955.

2 Queen v Bowman (1898) 1 QB 663.

3 For instance see J M Desai v Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578 [LNIND 1975 SC 532]; Ratlam Municipality v Vardhi
Chand AIR 1980 SC 1622 [LNIND 1980 SC 287]. As to the meaning of ‘locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and
[245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.219], [005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].

End of Document
[245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(2) TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

[245.012] Exceptions to traditional doctrine

1 For instance in KR Shenoy v Udipi Municipality AIR 1974 SC 2177 [LNIND 1974 SC 225]; Varadarajan v Salem
Muncipality AIR 1973 Mad 1955.
2 Queen v Bowman (1898) 1 QB 663.
3 For instance see J M Desai v Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 578 [LNIND 1975 SC 532]; Ratlam Municipality v Vardhi
Chand AIR 1980 SC 1622 [LNIND 1980 SC 287]. As to the meaning of ‘locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and
[245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.219], [005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].

End of Document
[245.013] Necessity
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI > (3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS
STANDI

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.013] Necessity

In order to improve the access to justice for the people, a need was felt to go beyond the rules of standing of the
British-Indian vintage1. It was realised that if the centre of gravity of justice was to shift, from the traditional
individualism of a locus standi to community orientation of public interest litigation, such issues must be
considered2. This is where liberalisation of doctrine of locus standi was thought to be inescapable3.

1 Municipal Council Ratlam v Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622 [LNIND 1980 SC 287]) at 1623.

2 See note 1. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.330]. As to the meaning of locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.219], [005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].

3 The need for liberalisation of locus standi was being felt even before the first public interest litigation was filed. A high-
powered committee was constituted by the Government of India (which included two very distinguished judges of the
Supreme Court of India, that is, Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer), had emphasised the need for
making the rules of locus standi broad based. The committee observed that one being driven to court on his separate
cause of action, was itself a public wrong; the rule of locus standi requires to be broad-based and any organisation or
individual must be able to start such legal action: Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India,
‘Report on National Juridicature (1977)’.

End of Document
[245.013] Necessity
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.013] Necessity
In order to improve the access to justice for the people, a need was felt to go beyond the rules of standing of the
British-Indian vintage1. It was realised that if the centre of gravity of justice was to shift, from the traditional
individualism of a locus standi to community orientation of public interest litigation, such issues must be
considered2. This is where liberalisation of doctrine of locus standi was thought to be inescapable3.

1 Municipal Council Ratlam v Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622 [LNIND 1980 SC 287]) at 1623.
2 See note 1. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.330]. As to the meaning of locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[005.219], [005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].
3 The need for liberalisation of locus standi was being felt even before the first public interest litigation was filed. A high-
powered committee was constituted by the Government of India (which included two very distinguished judges of the
Supreme Court of India, that is, Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer), had emphasised the need for
making the rules of locus standi broad based. The committee observed that one being driven to court on his separate
cause of action, was itself a public wrong; the rule of locus standi requires to be broad-based and any organisation or
individual must be able to start such legal action: Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India,
‘Report on National Juridicature (1977)’.

End of Document
[245.014] Enforcement of collective rights
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.014] Enforcement of collective rights

If the public duties are to be enforced and social, collective and diffused rights and interests are to be protected, the
zeal of public minded persons or organisations would need to be utilised by allowing them to move the court for a
general or group interest, even though they may not be directly injured in their own right. It is for this reason that
any citizen who has acted bona fide and has sufficient interest has to be accorded standing in a public interest
litigation1.

The proceedings in public interest litigation are intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention
of violation of constitutional or statutory rights. However, sizeable segments of the society, owing to poverty,
ignorance, social and economic disadvantageous position cannot assert their rights and are, quite often, not even
aware of those rights. The technique of public interest litigation serves to provide an effective remedy to enforce
these group-rights and interests2.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public
interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

2 Sheela Barse v Union of India AIR 1988 SC 2211.

End of Document
[245.014] Enforcement of collective rights
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.014] Enforcement of collective rights

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public interest
litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
2 Sheela Barse v Union of India AIR 1988 SC 2211.

End of Document
[245.015] Specific legal injury to others
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.015] Specific legal injury to others

Where a person who has suffered legal wrong or legal injury or whose legal rights or interest is violated has been
unable to approach the court because of some disability, another person can invoke the assistance of the court for
judicial redress. The disability may be because it has not been practicable for him to move the court for reason such
as his socially and economically disadvantage position. In such a case, unless another person is allowed to move
the court the legal wrong or the injury caused to such person could go unredressed1. The Supreme Court has
recognised this departure from the strict rule of locus standi in cases where there have been a violation of the
Constitution or a legal right of a person who, due to their socially or economically disadvantaged position, were
unable to approach the court for judicial redress. Thus, the Supreme Court has accepted a habeas corpus petition
of a prisoner complaining of brutal assault by a head warden and another prisoner2. Likewise, when it is found that
inmates of protective homes were living in inhuman and degrading conditions and who are not in a position to move
the court for judicial redress, a letter written by law professors was admitted by the court as a writ petition3.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has entertained a letter addressed by a journalist claiming a relief against demolition
of hutments of pavement dwellers by a municipal corporation4.

Such directions and orders are maintainable in high court5 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such
person or determinate class of person, the petition would lie in the Supreme Court6.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

2 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579.

3 Upendra Baxi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 Scale 1137.

4 Olga Tellis v Union of India [1985] Supp (2) SCR 51, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
Page 2 of 2
[245.015] Specific legal injury to others

5 Ie under the Constitution of India art 226.

6 Ie under the Constitution of India art 32. See S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.015] Specific legal injury to others
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.015] Specific legal injury to others

Such directions and orders are maintainable in high court5 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such
person or determinate class of person, the petition would lie in the Supreme Court6.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

2 Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579.
3 Upendra Baxi v State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 Scale 1137.
4 Olga Tellis v Union of India [1985] Supp (2) SCR 51, (1985) 3 SCC 545 [LNIND 1985 SC 215].
5 Ie under the Constitution of India art 226.
6 Ie under the Constitution of India art 32. See S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.016] Injury to public interest
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.016] Injury to public interest

There may be cases where the state or a public authority may act in violation of constitutional or statutory
obligations or fail to carry out such obligation, resulting in injury to public interest. This may be termed as public
injury, as distinguished from private injury1. In such cases, if no one can maintain an action for redress, it would be
disastrous for rule of law. This would be so because it would be then open to the state or public authority to act with
impunity beyond the scope of its power or in breach of public duties owned by it. Thus, in all such cases where
there has been the public wrong and the public injury, any member of the public acting bona fide and having
sufficient interest can maintain a redress of such public wrong or public injury2. The risk of legal action against the
state or public authority by any citizen will induce the state or such public authority to act with greater responsibility
and care thereby improving the administration of justice3. This broadening of rules of locus standi has been largely
responsible for the development of public law in India4.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

2 See note 1.

3 Rex v Inland Revenue Comrs (1981) 2 WLR 722 at 740 (it would be a great lacuna in our system of public law if a
pressure groups like a federation or even single public spirited, tax payer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of
locus standi from bringing the matter to attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct
stopped).

4 It is only the availability of judicial remedy for enforcement, which invests law with the meaning and purpose or else
the law would remain merely a paper parchment and a promise of unreality: S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC
149. As to the meaning of ‘locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.219],
[005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].
Page 2 of 2
[245.016] Injury to public interest

End of Document
[245.016] Injury to public interest
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.016] Injury to public interest

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

2 See note 1.
3 Rex v Inland Revenue Comrs (1981) 2 WLR 722 at 740 (it would be a great lacuna in our system of public law if a
pressure groups like a federation or even single public spirited, tax payer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of
locus standi from bringing the matter to attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct
stopped).
4 It is only the availability of judicial remedy for enforcement, which invests law with the meaning and purpose or else the
law would remain merely a paper parchment and a promise of unreality: S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
As to the meaning of ‘locus standi’ see [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156]. See also ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.219],
[005.231], [005.257] and [005.331].

End of Document
[245.017] Qualified standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.017] Qualified standing

Where there is public injury by the act or omission of the state or public authority which also simultaneously causes
specific injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals, a member of the public having sufficient
interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such action. However, if the person or specific
class/group of persons who have been primarily injured do not wish to claim anything, the member of public who
complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action1.

(1) such person being in custody; or

(2) where such person belongs to a class or group of persons who are in a disadvantaged position on account
of poverty, disability or other social or economical impediment and are unable to enforce their rights; and

Even where no particular person has been legally injured but a public injury has been caused by the violation of a
constitutional principle such as the independence of the judiciary, any person who is likely to be affected by such
public injury such as a lawyer would be allowed to complain of such violation2.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public
interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149; Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420 [LNIND 1991 SC
13]; Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579; Banvasi Sewa Ashram v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987
SC 374 [LNIND 1986 SC 472].
Page 2 of 2
[245.017] Qualified standing

End of Document
[245.017] Qualified standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.017] Qualified standing

The above discussions on the liberalisation of locus standi can be summarised as follows. A public interest litigation
can be launched only when the actual aggrieved person is unable to approach the court for redress owing to:
(1) such person being in custody; or
(2) where such person belongs to a class or group of persons who are in a disadvantaged position on account
of poverty, disability or other social or economical impediment and are unable to enforce their rights; and

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001]. As to public interest
litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149; Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420 [LNIND 1991 SC 13];
Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1980 SC 1579; Banvasi Sewa Ashram v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC
374 [LNIND 1986 SC 472].

End of Document
[245.018] Enforcing public duty
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(2.) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.018] Enforcing public duty

Law is being increasingly used as a device of organised social action for bringing about socio-economic change. It
is increasingly creating a new category of right in favour of large sections of people and imposing the new category
of duties on the state and the public officials, with a view to reaching social justice to the common person. Individual
rights and duties are giving place to meta-individual, collective, social rights and duties of classes or groups of
persons. This is not to say that individual right has ceased to have a vital place but to recognise that these rights
are practically meaningless in today’s setting, unless accompanied by the social right necessary to make them
effective. The new social and economic rights that are sought to be created in pursuance of the directive principles
of state policy specially require active intervention of the state and the public authority1.

The imposition of public duties on the state and on the other authorities for taking positive action generates a
situation in which a single human action can be beneficial or prejudicial to a large number of people2. In such cases,
a public injury, that is, an injury to an indeterminate class of person may be caused. Here, the duty, which is
breached giving rise to injury, is owned by state or a public authority not to any specific determinate class or group
of a person, but to the public. In other words, the duty is one that is not correlated to any individual rights. If breach
of public duties were allowed to go unredressed, it would make new social collective rights and interests created for
the benefit for the deprived section of the community meaningless and ineffectual3.

2 For instance, the discharge of affluents in a lake or river may harm all who want to enjoy its clean water; emission of
noxious gas may cause injury to large numbers of people who inhale it along with the air, defective or unhealthy
packaging may cause damage to all consumers of goods and so also illegal raising of railway or bus fares may affect
the entire public which wants to use the railway or bus as a means of transport. In such cases, it would not possible to
say that any specific legal injury has been caused to an individual or to a determinant class or group of individual.
Page 2 of 2
[245.018] Enforcing public duty

3 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.018] Enforcing public duty
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

2. LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

(3) LIBERALISATION OF LOCUS STANDI

[245.018] Enforcing public duty

1 Amongst these, social and economic rights are freedom from indigence, ignorance and discrimination as well as to right
healthy environment, to social security and to protection from financial commercial, corporate or even governmental
operation: S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
2 For instance, the discharge of affluents in a lake or river may harm all who want to enjoy its clean water; emission of
noxious gas may cause injury to large numbers of people who inhale it along with the air, defective or unhealthy
packaging may cause damage to all consumers of goods and so also illegal raising of railway or bus fares may affect
the entire public which wants to use the railway or bus as a means of transport. In such cases, it would not possible to
say that any specific legal injury has been caused to an individual or to a determinant class or group of individual.
3 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.019] The earlier conservative position
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.019] The earlier conservative position

In England, during the 19th century, the courts generally held a conservative position, as they were reluctant to
entertain any person unless he had a particular grievance of his own1. For an aggrieved person to approach the
court, it was believed that the applicant must be a man against whom a decision had been wrongfully pronounced
and had deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to
something2. This definition was rejected by Lord Denning, holding that the words ‘persons aggrieved’ are of a wide
import and must not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation3.

2 Ex parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 per James, LJ.

3 Attorney General of Gambia v N fie [1961] AC 617 (an aggrieved person does not include a mere busybody but a
person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest). See
further [245.020].

End of Document
[245.019] The earlier conservative position
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.019] The earlier conservative position

1 Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Oxford University Press (it would be unreasonable to
multiply suits by giving every man a separate right of action, for what damnifies him in common only with the rest of his
fellow subjects).
2 Ex parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 per James, LJ.
3 Attorney General of Gambia v N fie [1961] AC 617 (an aggrieved person does not include a mere busybody but a
person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interest). See
further [245.020].

End of Document
[245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing

On the question of standing, there have been notable developments in the United Kingdom, largely due to the
dynamic activism of Lord Denning, the well known Mc Whirter case and the three Blackburn cases, which clearly
established that any member of the public having sufficient interest1 may maintain an action for enforcing public
duty against a statutory or public authority2. This is absolutely essential for maintaining rule of law3, furthering the
cause of justice and accelerating the pace of realisation of the constitutional objectives4.

1 As to the determination of sufficient interest see [245.022].

2 See Attorney General v Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] 1 All ER 689. See also Reg v Greater London
Council, Ex parte Blackburn [1976] 3 All ER 184.
See Attorney General v Independent Broadcasting Authority [1973] 1 All ER 689. See also Reg v Greater London Council, Ex
parte Blackburn [1976] 3 All ER 184.

3 As to the concept of ‘rule of law’ see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.003].

4 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.020] Lord Denning liberalises standing

1 As to the determination of sufficient interest see [245.022].

End of Document
[245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing

The following are certain facts of significance as to when the rule relating to standing may be relaxed by courts1:

(1) The importance of vindicating the rule of law2.

(2) The importance of the issue raised3.

(3) The likely absence of any other responsible challengers4.

(4) The nature of breach of duties against which relief is sought5.

(5) The prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance and assistance with regard to aid6.

2 Inland Revenue Comrs v National Federation of Self-Employed & Small Business Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93 at 107 per
Lord Diplock.

3 [1982] AC 617 at 644.

4 Ex P Child Poverty Action Group [1981] 1 All ER 1047 at 1048.

5 See note 2 above.

Page 2 of 2
[245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing

6 See note 4 above.

End of Document
[245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(1) THE POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM

[245.021] Criteria for relaxing standing

The following are certain facts of significance as to when the rule relating to standing may be relaxed by courts1:
(1) The importance of vindicating the rule of law2.
(2) The importance of the issue raised3.
(3) The likely absence of any other responsible challengers4.
(4) The nature of breach of duties against which relief is sought5.
(5) The prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance and assistance with regard to aid6.

1 R v Secretary for State Foreign Affairs World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 All ER 611 (After an elaborate
survey of the English case law on the question of standing, Rose LJ indicated certain facts of significance as to when
the rule relating to standing may be relaxed by the courts).
2 Inland Revenue Comrs v National Federation of Self-Employed & Small Business Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93 at 107 per
Lord Diplock.
3 [1982] AC 617 at 644.
4 Ex P Child Poverty Action Group [1981] 1 All ER 1047 at 1048.
5 See note 2 above.
6 See note 4 above.

End of Document
[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’

(1) once leave has been granted to move a court for judicial review4, the court which hears the application
must examine whether the applicant has sufficient interest;

(2) whether an applicant has sufficient interest is not purely a matter of discretion of the court;

(3) not every member of the public may complain of every breach of statutory duty by a person empowered to
come to a decision by that statute;

(4) a direct financial or legal interest is not required;

(5) where one is examining an alleged failure to perform a duty imposed by statute, it is useful to look at the
statute to see whether it gives an applicant a right enabling him to have that duty performed;

(6) merely to assert that one has an interest does not give one an interest;

(7) the fact that thousands of people join together and assert that they have an interest does not create an
interest if the individuals do not have an interest;
(8) the fact that those without an interest incorporate themselves and give the company, in its memorandum,
the power to pursue a particular object, does not give the company an interest.
Page 2 of 2
[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’

1 In this regard a specific rule was introduced by the Supreme Court, in England. The rules stipulated that no application
for judicial review may be made unless the leave of the court had been obtained and that the court would not grant
leave unless it considered that the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter to which the application related: see
the Rules of the Supreme Court in England O 53, r 3 with effect from 11 January 1978.
Lord Denning, however, suggested that it is legitimate to adopt the test laid down in the Blackburn and Mc Whirter cases. The
court will listen to an ordinary citizen who comes asking for the law to be declared and enforced, even if he is only one of a
hundred who are affected by it.
Subsequently, broad guidelines to determine if the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter were laid down: Inland
Revenue Comrs v National Federation of Self-employed & Small Business Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93.

2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (what is sufficient interest to provide a standing to a member of the
public must be determined by the court in each individual case).

3 R v Secretary of State in Environment Ex P Rose Theatre Trust Co per Schiemann, J.

4 As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.210].

End of Document
[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’

The question as to whether an applicant has ‘sufficient interest’ is to be decided by the court1. It is not possible for
the court to lay down any inflexible rule or any straitjacket formula for the purpose of defining or delimiting ‘sufficient
interest’. It has necessarily to be the discretion of the court2. Some tests to determine sufficient interest have been
laid down3. The following observations are relevant:
(1) once leave has been granted to move a court for judicial review4, the court which hears the application
must examine whether the applicant has sufficient interest;
(2) whether an applicant has sufficient interest is not purely a matter of discretion of the court;
(3) not every member of the public may complain of every breach of statutory duty by a person empowered to
come to a decision by that statute;
(4) a direct financial or legal interest is not required;
(5) where one is examining an alleged failure to perform a duty imposed by statute, it is useful to look at the
statute to see whether it gives an applicant a right enabling him to have that duty performed;
(6) merely to assert that one has an interest does not give one an interest;
(7) the fact that thousands of people join together and assert that they have an interest does not create an
interest if the individuals do not have an interest;
(8) the fact that those without an interest incorporate themselves and give the company, in its memorandum,
the power to pursue a particular object, does not give the company an interest.

1 In this regard a specific rule was introduced by the Supreme Court, in England. The rules stipulated that no application
for judicial review may be made unless the leave of the court had been obtained and that the court would not grant
leave unless it considered that the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter to which the application related: see
the Rules of the Supreme Court in England O 53, r 3 with effect from 11 January 1978.
Lord Denning, however, suggested that it is legitimate to adopt the test laid down in the Blackburn and Mc Whirter cases.
The court will listen to an ordinary citizen who comes asking for the law to be declared and enforced, even if he is only
one of a hundred who are affected by it.
Page 2 of 2
[245.022] Determining ‘sufficient interest’

Subsequently, broad guidelines to determine if the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter were laid down: Inland
Revenue Comrs v National Federation of Self-employed & Small Business Ltd [1981] 2 All ER 93.
2 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (what is sufficient interest to provide a standing to a member of the public
must be determined by the court in each individual case).
3 R v Secretary of State in Environment Ex P Rose Theatre Trust Co per Schiemann, J.
4 As to judicial review see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.210].

End of Document
[245.023] Tests for determining standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.023] Tests for determining standing

The liberalisation of the rules relating to a standing1 has made possible the veritable revolution that has occurred in
the laws relating to environment and consumer protection2. However, a distinction is required to be borne in mind
between the class actions such as those relating to consumer cases and environmental cases on the one hand,
and the cases that are more or less in the nature of complaints against the government and governmental
agencies. In the latter cases, the courts must insist upon the bona fides of the public interest litigant even at the
threshold. In such cases, the court must require the public interest litigant to satisfy the court about his interest
beyond what belongs to any one of the thousands and millions of people of the country. Accordingly, different
considerations may arise when the enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory rights of the weaker section are
involved. Similarly, the parameters may be totally different in class actions relating to consumer cases and aesthetic
and environmental interest3.

1 As to the liberalisation of rules relating to standing see [245.020].

2 As to the laws relating to environment and consumer protection see generally [135] ENVIRONMENT and [85] CONSUMER
PROTECTION respectively.

3 K Hanumanta Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB).

End of Document
[245.023] Tests for determining standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.023] Tests for determining standing

1 As to the liberalisation of rules relating to standing see [245.020].

2 As to the laws relating to environment and consumer protection see generally [135] ENVIRONMENT and [85] CONSUMER
PROTECTION respectively.

3 K Hanumanta Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB).

End of Document
[245.024] Abuse of standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.024] Abuse of standing

The courts of justice must not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to public interest
litigations1. A petitioner who comes to the court for relief in the public interest must come not only with clean hands
but also with a clean mind and a clean objective2.

1 Ambedkar Basti Vikas Sabha v Delhi Vidyut Board (2000) 87 Del LT 170 (DB). As to public interest litigation see
generally ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

2 K P Sriniwas v R M Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620; Ramjas Foundation v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 852 [LNIND
1992 SC 823]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.024] Abuse of standing
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

A. GENERALLY

[245.024] Abuse of standing

1 Ambedkar Basti Vikas Sabha v Delhi Vidyut Board (2000) 87 Del LT 170 (DB). As to public interest litigation see
generally ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
2 K P Sriniwas v R M Premchand (1994) 6 SCC 620; Ramjas Foundation v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 852 [LNIND
1992 SC 823]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished

There is a vital distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not every default on the part of a state or a
public authority that is justiciable. In this context, the court must take care to see that it does not transgress the limit
of its judicial function and trespass into areas that are reserved to the executive and the legislature by the
Constitution of India 19501.

The locus standi to approach by way of a writ petition and a refusal to grant relief on the grounds of equity, has two
aspects. One relates to the maintainability of a petition and other to the exercise of discretion. The restricted
meaning of aggrieved persons and the narrow outlook of specific injury have yielded in favour of a broad and wide
construction in the wake of public interest litigation2. The requirement of locus standi of a party to litigation is
mandatory3. This is because the legal capacity of a party to any litigation whether in private or public action has to
be primarily ascertained at the threshold4.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. See also [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

2 Bangalore Medical Trust v B S Moddappa AIR 1991 SC 1902 [LNIND 1991 SC 315]. As to the meaning of ‘locus
standi’ see also [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156].

3 Patricin Mukhim v State of Meghalaya (1997) 2 Gau LT 218 (the requirement of locus standi of a party in a litigative
battle is a mandatory requirement).

4 Janata Dal vSH Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].
Page 2 of 2
[245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished

End of Document
[245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.025] Locus standi and justiciability distinguished

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149. See also [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
2 Bangalore Medical Trust v B S Moddappa AIR 1991 SC 1902 [LNIND 1991 SC 315]. As to the meaning of ‘locus
standi’ see also [245.128], [245.139] and [245.156].
3 Patricin Mukhim v State of Meghalaya (1997) 2 Gau LT 218 (the requirement of locus standi of a party in a litigative
battle is a mandatory requirement).
4 Janata Dal vSH Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances

(1) lawyers challenging the commercial transactions of public institutions1;

(2) judicial review of the appointments of government councils at the instinct of advocates2;

(3) public interest litigation by retired officers of the Indian Administrative Services with regard to power
purchase agreement3;

(4) public interest litigation on behalf of tax payers to prevent misuse or abuse and improper use of any public
property by anyone4;

(5) guardians of students challenging a revision of syllabus5;

(6) public interest litigation by registered societies in which the concept of public accountability, transparency
and excise of jurisdiction are raised in a just manner6;
(7) advocates permitted to move petition for cancellation of a bail granted to certain other persons7.

In all the above cases the general interest of the society has received predominance unmindful of the concern of
the petitioner8.
Page 2 of 2
[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances

1 N Parthasarathy v Controller of Capital (1991) 2 JT 218.

2 Harpal Singh Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2436 [LNIND 1993 SC 487]. As to judicial review see
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW[005.210].

3 J C Almeida v State of Goas AIR 1998 Bom 191 [LNIND 1998 BOM 226].

4 J Jayalalitha v Government of Tamil Nadu (1999) 1 SCC 53.

5 West Bengal Board of Secondary Education v Basana Rani Ghosh AIR 1982 Cal 467 [LNIND 1982 CAL 133].

6 Second Common Cause v Union of India (1999) 5 JT 237; Common Cause v Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 530
[LNIND 1996 SC 1542].

7 R Rathilam v State District Crime Branch, Madurai (2000) 1 JT 604.

8 Nand Kishore Nautiyal v Tehri Hydro Dev Corpn (2000) All LJ 2583.

End of Document
[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances

The concept of locus standi has through a number of cases come to be relaxed as evidenced in a spate of
decisions in which journalists, advocates, bureaucrats and tax payers have been permitted to bring to the notice of
the court the acts of omission or commission on the part of state or other public authorities for suitable directions.
Some examples include:
(1) lawyers challenging the commercial transactions of public institutions1;
(2) judicial review of the appointments of government councils at the instinct of advocates2;
(3) public interest litigation by retired officers of the Indian Administrative Services with regard to power
purchase agreement3;
(4) public interest litigation on behalf of tax payers to prevent misuse or abuse and improper use of any public
property by anyone4;
(5) guardians of students challenging a revision of syllabus5;
(6) public interest litigation by registered societies in which the concept of public accountability, transparency
and excise of jurisdiction are raised in a just manner6;
(7) advocates permitted to move petition for cancellation of a bail granted to certain other persons7.

In all the above cases the general interest of the society has received predominance unmindful of the concern of
the petitioner8.

1 N Parthasarathy v Controller of Capital (1991) 2 JT 218.

2 Harpal Singh Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2436 [LNIND 1993 SC 487]. As to judicial review see
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.210].

3 J C Almeida v State of Goas AIR 1998 Bom 191 [LNIND 1998 BOM 226].
4 J Jayalalitha v Government of Tamil Nadu (1999) 1 SCC 53.
5 West Bengal Board of Secondary Education v Basana Rani Ghosh AIR 1982 Cal 467 [LNIND 1982 CAL 133].
Page 2 of 2
[245.026] Liberalised locus standi in India: some instances

6 Second Common Cause v Union of India (1999) 5 JT 237; Common Cause v Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 530 [LNIND
1996 SC 1542].
7 R Rathilam v State District Crime Branch, Madurai (2000) 1 JT 604.
8 Nand Kishore Nautiyal v Tehri Hydro Dev Corpn (2000) All LJ 2583.

End of Document
[245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases

The fear that if the doors of the courts are kept open for any member of the public, the courts will be flooded with
litigations, is entirely unfounded1. Further, in India as in other commonwealth countries, a restrictive rule of standing
does not apply to a writ of quo warranto2 or a rate payer’s action against a municipality, but there is no evidence
that this has augmented the litigation in these areas3. The large arrears pending in the courts must not be made a
reason for denying access to justice to the poor and weaker sections of the community4.

1 The Australian Law Reforms Commission has noted that a major expressed reason for limiting standing is the fear of
a spate of actions brought by bus-ybodies that will unduly extend the resources of the courts. See K E Scott, Standing
in the Supreme Court: A Functional Analysis.
The Supreme Court of India has endorsed the remarks of the Australian Law Reforms Commission and has agreed that the
time, money and other inconveniences involved in litigation act as sufficient deterrents for most of us for to take recourse of legal
action. See also S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

2 As to the writ of quo warranto see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.282].

3 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, Krishna Iyer, J.

4 Peoples for Democratic Right v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 [LNIND 1982 SC 135].

End of Document
[245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (2) THE POSITION IN INDIA > B. LIBERALISED LOCUS
STANDI

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(2) THE POSITION IN INDIA

B. LIBERALISED LOCUS STANDI

[245.027] Trepidation of a spate of cases

1 The Australian Law Reforms Commission has noted that a major expressed reason for limiting standing is the fear of a
spate of actions brought by bus-ybodies that will unduly extend the resources of the courts. See K E Scott, Standing in
the Supreme Court: A Functional Analysis.
The Supreme Court of India has endorsed the remarks of the Australian Law Reforms Commission and has agreed that the
time, money and other inconveniences involved in litigation act as sufficient deterrents for most of us for to take
recourse of legal action. See also S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
2 As to the writ of quo warranto see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.282].
3 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, Krishna Iyer, J.
4 Peoples for Democratic Right v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 [LNIND 1982 SC 135].

End of Document
[245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > A.
Introduction

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

A. Introduction

[245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions

A number of public interest actions are rejected on the ground that they have been filed only on the basis of
newspaper reports where the petitioner has not made sufficient inquiry on the efficacy of these reports before
approaching the court1. Any person seeking to espouse a public cause owes it to the public as well as to the court
to undertake research even if he is qualified or competent to raise the issue. A good cause may be lost if petitions
are filed on ill-considered information without proper research or by persons who are not qualified or competent to
raise such issues, as the rejection of such petition may affect a third party’s rights2.

1 P N Dubey v Union of India AIR 1989 MP 225 [LNIND 1988 MP 130]. See also Rajesh Rakhi v State of Rajasthan
(1997) 3 Raj LW 2070.

2 S P Anand v H D Devegauda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].

End of Document
[245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > A.
Introduction

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

A. Introduction

[245.028] Need for well-researched public interest actions

1 P N Dubey v Union of India AIR 1989 MP 225 [LNIND 1988 MP 130]. See also Rajesh Rakhi v State of Rajasthan
(1997) 3 Raj LW 2070.
2 S P Anand v H D Devegauda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].

End of Document
[245.029] Preconditions for case admission
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > A.
Introduction

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

A. Introduction

[245.029] Preconditions for case admission

When a writ petition is filed in the high court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority of the state,
the court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. It is
important to bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed, thus,
escalating the cost of litigation. Ultimately, the public would have to pay a much higher price in the form of delay in
the commissioning of the project and the consequent delay in the contemplated public service becoming available
to the public.

Therefore, before entertaining a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions, the court must
carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion that there is an overwhelming public
interest in entertaining the petition, the court must intervene1.

1 Ramaq International Ltd v IVR Construction Ltd (1999) 1 scc 492. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.029] Preconditions for case admission
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > A.
Introduction

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

A. Introduction

[245.029] Preconditions for case admission

1 Ramaq International Ltd v IVR Construction Ltd (1999) 1 scc 492. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.030] Generally
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > B.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

B. GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245.030] Generally

There is a need to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of public
interest litigations1.

The courts will allow litigation in public interest if it is found that:

(1) the impugned action is violative of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India 19502 and
relief is sought for its enforcement;

(2) the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects a group of persons who are not in a
position to protect their own interests on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;

(3) the persons or a group of persons were approaching the court in the public interest for redressal of public
injury arising from a breach of public duty or from a violation of some provision of the Constitution of India
1950;

(4) such persons or group of persons are not a busybody or meddlesome interlopers and have not
approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievances;

(5) the process of public interest litigation is not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or
unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the state or public authority being not justiciable in such
litigation;

(6) the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of
the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set-up of the country;

(7) the person approaching the court has come with clean hands and clean objectives;
(8) before taking any action in the public interest the court must be satisfied that its forum was not being
misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politician, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective
Page 2 of 2
[245.030] Generally

either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmail or consideration extraneous to
the public interest3.

1 Rajasthan Kisan Sangthan v State of Rajasthan AIR 1989 Raj 10; Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal
(1987) 2 scc 295. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005-330].

2 Ie any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India 1950 Pt III: see also [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

3 R S Bains v State of Punjab AIR 1996 P&H 1 (public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition being
filed or upon the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the
court was of such a nature which required examination). As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.030] Generally
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > B.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

B. GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245.030] Generally
There is a need to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of public
interest litigations1.

The courts will allow litigation in public interest if it is found that:

(1) the impugned action is violative of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India 19502 and
relief is sought for its enforcement;
(2) the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects a group of persons who are not in a
position to protect their own interests on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;
(3) the persons or a group of persons were approaching the court in the public interest for redressal of public
injury arising from a breach of public duty or from a violation of some provision of the Constitution of India
1950;
(4) such persons or group of persons are not a busybody or meddlesome interlopers and have not
approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievances;
(5) the process of public interest litigation is not being abused by politicians or other busybodies for political or
unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the state or public authority being not justiciable in such
litigation;
(6) the litigation initiated in public interest was such that if not remedied or prevented would weaken the faith of
the common man in the institution of the judiciary and the democratic set-up of the country;
(7) the person approaching the court has come with clean hands and clean objectives;
(8) before taking any action in the public interest the court must be satisfied that its forum was not being
misused by any unscrupulous litigant, politician, busybody or persons or groups with mala fide objective
either for vindication of their personal grievance or by resorting to blackmail or consideration extraneous to
the public interest3.
Page 2 of 2
[245.030] Generally

1 Rajasthan Kisan Sangthan v State of Rajasthan AIR 1989 Raj 10; Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal (1987)
2 scc 295. As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005-330].
2 Ie any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India 1950 Pt III: see also [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
3 R S Bains v State of Punjab AIR 1996 P&H 1 (public interest litigation may be initiated either upon a petition being filed
or upon the basis of a letter or other information received but upon satisfaction that the information laid before the court
was of such a nature which required examination). As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

End of Document
[245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > B.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

B. GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds

Public interest litigants are bound to disclose full particulars about themselves including their status, vocation and
other details. The courts would be in a better position to appreciate the question raised and the competency of the
public interest litigants to raise such question, provided the required information is made available to the courts. In
this context, the facts stated by the public interest litigants must reveal the concern in public interest and only when
the court is satisfied, must it proceed with the matter1. Moreover, on issues of constitutional law, litigants who do not
have expert knowledge in the field must refrain from filing petitions2.

2 K Hanumanta Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB); S PAnand v H D Devegauda (1996) 6 SCC 734
[LNIND 1996 SC 1845] (there is a need to exercise restraint in moving the court by not plunging in an area where the
petitioner is not well versed).

End of Document
[245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > B.
GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

B. GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSIBILITY

[245.031] Knowing petitioners’ backgrounds

1 No person in the name of public interest litigation may claim an automatic right to hearing and such hearing may not be
provided by the court unless the court is satisfied about the bona fides of the person approaching the court:
KHanumanta Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB) (the notion that public interest litigants need not disclose
complete details about themselves to the court needs to be dispelled).
2 K Hanumanta Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB); S PANAND v H D Devegauda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND
1996 SC 1845] (there is a need to exercise restraint in moving the court by not plunging in an area where the petitioner
is not well versed).

End of Document
[245.032] Making litigants accountable
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > C.
ACCOUNTABILITY

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

C. ACCOUNTABILITY

[245.032] Making litigants accountable

The State spends large sums of money to provide, maintain and conduct the apparatus of adjudicatory processes.
If the court finds that the adjudicatory process is abused or misused wantonly by a person under the garb of a
public interest litigation, it is necessary to make him accountable for his litigative luxury, in order to subserve the
public interest1. However, the argument of wastage of time must not be a ground when a fundamental right is
sought to be enforced by a public interest litigation2. The party at whose instance interim orders are obtained must
be made accountable for the consequence of the interim order. Therefore, the petitioner asking for interim orders, in
appropriate cases, must be asked to provide security for any increase in costs as a result of such delay or any
damage suffered by the opposite party in consequence of such interim order3.

1 Thakur Bahadur Singh v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 All LT 567; Janta Dal v HS Chowdhry AIR 1993
SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 [LNIND 1982 SC 135]. As to public interest
litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

3 Raunaq International Ltd v IVR Construction Ltd (1999) 1 SCC 492 [LNIND 1998 SC 1235]: Generally, before a
project is undertaken, a detailed consideration of the need, viability, financing and cost effectiveness of the proposed
project and offers received takes place at various levels in the government. If there is a good reason why the project
must not be undertaken, the time to object is at the time when the same is under consideration and before a final
decision is taken to undertake the project. If breach of law in the execution of the project is apprehended, then it is at
the stage when the viability of the project is being considered that the objection before the appropriate authorities
including the court must be raised.
Considerable time is spent by the authorities concerned before the final decision is taken, regarding the execution of a public
project. This is the appropriate time when all aspects and all objections should be considered. It is only when valid objections are
Page 2 of 2
[245.032] Making litigants accountable

not taken into account or ignored that the court may intervene. Even so, the court must be moved at the earliest possible
opportunity. Belated petitions must not be entertained. As to delays in filing public interest litigations see further [245.062] and
[245.062].

End of Document
[245.032] Making litigants accountable
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > C.
ACCOUNTABILITY

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

C. ACCOUNTABILITY

[245.032] Making litigants accountable

1 Thakur Bahadur Singh v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 All LT 567; Janta Dal v HS Chowdhry AIR 1993 SC
892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]. As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].
2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473 [LNIND 1982 SC 135]. As to public interest
litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
3 Raunaq International Ltd v IVR Construction Ltd (1999) 1 SCC 492 [LNIND 1998 SC 1235]: Generally, before a project
is undertaken, a detailed consideration of the need, viability, financing and cost effectiveness of the proposed project
and offers received takes place at various levels in the government. If there is a good reason why the project must not
be undertaken, the time to object is at the time when the same is under consideration and before a final decision is
taken to undertake the project. If breach of law in the execution of the project is apprehended, then it is at the stage
when the viability of the project is being considered that the objection before the appropriate authorities including the
court must be raised.
Considerable time is spent by the authorities concerned before the final decision is taken, regarding the execution of a
public project. This is the appropriate time when all aspects and all objections should be considered. It is only when
valid objections are not taken into account or ignored that the court may intervene. Even so, the court must be moved
at the earliest possible opportunity. Belated petitions must not be entertained. As to delays in filing public interest
litigations see further [245.062] and [245.062].

End of Document
[245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > D.
LIBERALISATION

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

D. LIBERALISATION

[245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi

Public interest litigation is essentially designed to ensure the observance of the provisions of the Constitution or the
law which may be best achieved to advance the cause of the community or disadvantaged groups and individuals
or public interest by permitting any person acting bona fide and having a genuine interest in maintaining an action
for judicial redressal of public injury, to put the judicial machinery in motion. Generally, it is the person aggrieved
and directly affected who may seek relief himself unless disabled from doing so on account of socio-economic
disabilities and only in such an event the law permits someone else to seek relief on his behalf1.

Individual disputes must not be the subject matter of a public interest litigation, and any attempt in that regard must
be discouraged by the court. It is only in the clearest of cases of general affectation of the rights of the community at
large, or a wide variety or cross-section of people that the court will extend its assistance by entertaining a public
interest litigation so as to avoid any social or general mischief having due regard to the concept of justice. However,
only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding2 of a public interest litigation will have
a locus standi and may approach the court for the poor and needy, suffering from the violation of their fundamental
rights or other legal rights and to enforce the public law duties against the administration3.

Finally, the court must be satisfied about (1) the credentials of the applicant; (2) the prima facie correctness or
nature of information given by him; and (3) the clarity of the information received.

State of Himachal Pradesh v Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla (1985) 3 SCC 169 [LNIND 1985 SC 123];
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; S P Gupta v Union of India AIR
1982 SC 149; Fertilizer Corpn Kagar Union, Sindri v Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568 [LNIND 1980 SC 455];
Hussainarakhatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360; Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration AIR 1978
SC 1675 [LNIND 1978 SC 215]; M H Hoskot v State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 548 [LNIND 1978 SC 70]; K
Hanumantha Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB); K Prabhakar Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 2
All LT 1(DB), B Kistaiah v Government of India (1998) 4 All LT 738 (DB).

2 As to the meaning of ‘sufficient interest’ see [245.022].

3 Thakur Bahadur Singh v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 All LT 567.

End of Document
[245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS > D.
LIBERALISATION

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(3) ADMISSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONS

D. LIBERALISATION

[245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi

1 M C Mehta v Union of India (1998) 9 SCC 589; Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 [LNIND 1997 SC
1081], S P Anand v H D Deve Gowda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845]; Janata Dal vHS Choudhry AIR 1993
SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414]; AbdulRehman Antulay vR SNAYAK (1992) 1 SCC 225 [LNIND 1991 SC 673]; Kishan
Patnaik v State of Orissa (1989) 1 Scale 32; Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 [LNIND
1987 SC 159], (1987) 2 SCC 295 [LNIND 1987 SC 159]; Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corpn (1985) 3 SCC 545
[LNIND 1985 SC 215]; State of Himachal Pradesh v Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla (1985) 3 SCC 169
[LNIND 1985 SC 123]; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]; S P Gupta v
Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149; Fertilizer Corpn Kagar Union, Sindri v Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568 [LNIND 1980
SC 455]; Hussainarakhatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1360; Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration
AIR 1978 SC 1675 [LNIND 1978 SC 215]; M H Hoskot v State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 548 [LNIND 1978 SC 70];
K Hanumantha Rao v Prl Sub-Judge (1997) 4 All LT 444 (DB); K Prabhakar Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 2
All LT 1(DB), B Kistaiah v Government of India (1998) 4 All LT 738 (DB).
Page 2 of 2
[245.033] Liberalisation of locus standi

2 As to the meaning of ‘sufficient interest’ see [245.022].

3 Thakur Bahadur Singh v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1998) 5 All LT 567.

End of Document
[245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

A. GENERALLY

[245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies

A busy body is a person whose motive in challenging governmental action is not to right a wrong but to achieve
some ulterior end. The court must satisfy itself that the person initiating a public interest litigation has at least some
special interest in the subject matter and that he has some concern deeper than that of a busy body1. Such scrutiny
by the court may, to some extent, deter the vested interests and prevent the misuse of public interest litigation2.

In public interest litigation cases the most crucial question for the court is to measure the seriousness of the
petitioner and to see whether he is actually the champion of the cause of the persons or groups he is representing.
The effect of public interest litigation must go beyond the sphere of the parties present in the proceedings and the
public interest litigation must be accompanied by adequate judicial control so as to prevent this technique from
being used as an instrument of coercion, blackmail or for other oblique motive3.

1 Attorney General of Gambia v N fie [1961] AC 617.

2 As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

3 State of Himachal Pradesh v Umedh Ram (1986) 2 SCC 68 [LNIND 1986 SC 29]. See also Janata Dal v H S
Chaudhury AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

A. GENERALLY

[245.034] Duty of court to weed out busy bodies

1 Attorney General of Gambia v N fie [1961] AC 617.

2 As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
3 State of Himachal Pradesh v Umedh Ram (1986) 2 SCC 68 [LNIND 1986 SC 29]. See also Janata Dal v H S
Chaudhury AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

A. GENERALLY

[245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation

The relaxation of the rule of locus standi in the field of public interest litigation does not give any right to a busybody
or meddlesome interloper to approach the court under the guise of a public interest litigant1. In the context of locus
standi, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of the following categories:

(1) person aggrieved;

(2) a stranger; or
(3) a busy body or meddlesome interloper2.

Public interest litigation is a weapon that must be used with great care and circumspection3. It is an instrument of
the administration of justice to be used properly in proper cases4. While it is the duty of the court to enforce
fundamental rights, it is also the duty of the court to ensure that public interest litigation5 must not be misused or
permitted to be misused creating a bottleneck in the superior court preventing other genuine violations of
fundamental rights being considered by the court6. Further, on account of unwanted proceedings under frivolous
public interest litigations, a lot of time gets wasted which may otherwise be spent for the disposal of cases of
genuine litigants7.

While public activists must be permitted to espouse the cause of the poor citizens, there must be a limit set to such
activity and nothing must be done which would affect the dignity of the court and bring down the serviceability of the
institution to the people at large8. Once it is found that the petitioner was not acting at the instance of, or the haste
of, or for the protecting of any particular community, there is no reason to hold that the petitioner was acting bona
fide in approaching the court9.

justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court
for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation10. Thus, only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceedings of a public interest litigation will have a locus standi11.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (the court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians to
delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective).

3 State of Himachal Pradesh v A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla (1985) 3 SCC 169 [LNIND 1985 SC
123]; Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295 [LNIND 1987 SC 159], 331 (it is necessary to
have some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants).

4 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v Union of India (1989) Supp 1 SCC 251. See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India
(1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

5 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32 (see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW).

6 Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) 4 SCC 449 [LNIND 1990 SC 421] (the
weapon of ‘public interest litigation’ as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the court with great deal of
circumspection and caution. While it is the duty of the court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of the court
to ensure that the weapon under the Constitution of India 1950 art 226 must not be misused or permitted to be
misused). See D S Ravindradoss v The Government of Tamil Nadu (1992) 2 Mad LJ 179.

7 Ambedkar Basti Vikas Sabha v Jal Vidyut Board (2000) 87 Del LT 170 (DB).

8 Union Carbide Corpn v Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584.

9 State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363 [LNIND 1995 SC 897].

10 Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 [LNIND 1991 SC 13] (if such petitions under the Constitution of
India 1950 art 32 were entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to
other genuine petitioners from the court).

11 A vexatious petition under the colour of a public interest litigation brought before the court for vindicating any personal
grievance deserves rejection at the threshold: Janata Dal vHS Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

A. GENERALLY

[245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation

Public interest litigation contemplates legal proceeding for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a
group of persons or community that are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity,
poverty or ignorance of law. It is the duty of the court to discourage such petitions and to ensure that the course of
justice is not obstructed or polluted by unscrupulous litigants by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court
for personal matters under the garb of the public interest litigation10. Thus, only a person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceedings of a public interest litigation will have a locus standi11.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 (the court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians to delay
legitimate administrative action or to gain a political objective).
Page 2 of 2
[245.035] Position taken by courts on abusive litigation

2 The high court should do well to reject the applications of such busybodies at the threshold: Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v
Roshan Kumar, Haji Basher Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671 [LNIND 1975 SC 532] at 683, para 37.
See Fertilizer Corpn Kamgar Union (Regd) Sundri v Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 568 [LNIND 1980 SC 455] at 589 (if a
citizen is no more than a wayfarer or an officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any
one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him).
3 State of Himachal Pradesh v A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla (1985) 3 SCC 169 [LNIND 1985 SC 123];
Sachidanand Pandey v State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295 [LNIND 1987 SC 159], 331 (it is necessary to have
some self-imposed restraint on public interest litigants).
4 Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v Union of India (1989) Supp 1 SCC 251. See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India
(1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
5 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32 (see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW).
6 Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) 4 SCC 449 [LNIND 1990 SC 421] (the
weapon of ‘public interest litigation’ as a safeguard must be utilised and invoked by the court with great deal of
circumspection and caution. While it is the duty of the court to enforce fundamental rights, it is also the duty of the court
to ensure that the weapon under the Constitution of India 1950 art 226 must not be misused or permitted to be
misused). See D S Ravindradoss v The Government of Tamil Nadu (1992) 2 Mad LJ 179.
7 Ambedkar Basti Vikas Sabha v Jal Vidyut Board (2000) 87 Del LT 170 (DB).
8 Union Carbide Corpn v Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584.
9 State of Himachal Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products (1995) 6 SCC 363 [LNIND 1995 SC 897].
10 Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 [LNIND 1991 SC 13] (if such petitions under the Constitution of
India 1950 art 32 were entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to
other genuine petitioners from the court).
11 A vexatious petition under the colour of a public interest litigation brought before the court for vindicating any personal
grievance deserves rejection at the threshold: Janata Dal vHS Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892 [LNIND 1991 SC 414].

End of Document
[245.036] Maintainability of petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (4) ROLE OF COURTS > B. MAINTAINABILITY AND
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

B. MAINTAINABILITY AND WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245.036] Maintainability of petitions

Some of the vital questions that are to be answered to test the maintainability of any petition that purports to be in
‘public interest’1 and for a ‘public cause’ are:

(1) whose cause is the petitioner promoting;

(2) whose fundamental right or other right, if any, has been infringed;
(3) who has to be relieved against any wrong and injury caused to him for which he is unable to come to the
court owing to social, economic or any other handicap2.

The Supreme Court and the high court, after examining the nature and type of the public interest litigations that
have been lately coming before the court have held that a cautious approach is to be adopted in countenancing
such litigation. Except in extraordinary situations, entertaining of a writ petition on any and every issue at the
instance of anyone from the public is not to be allowed3. Further, the high court while entertaining a public interest
litigation must indicate how the public interest was involved in the case4.

1 As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

2 Jagram v Gwalior T & C Development Authority AIR 1987 MP 11 [LNIND 1985 MP 41].

3 Parthasarthi v Union of India (1992) 2 Mad LJ 257.

Page 2 of 2
[245.036] Maintainability of petitions

4 Gyani Devender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh v Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1847 [LNIND 1995 SC 11].

End of Document
[245.036] Maintainability of petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (4) ROLE OF COURTS > B. MAINTAINABILITY AND
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

B. MAINTAINABILITY AND WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245.036] Maintainability of petitions

Some of the vital questions that are to be answered to test the maintainability of any petition that purports to be in
‘public interest’1 and for a ‘public cause’ are:
(1) whose cause is the petitioner promoting;
(2) whose fundamental right or other right, if any, has been infringed;
(3) who has to be relieved against any wrong and injury caused to him for which he is unable to come to the
court owing to social, economic or any other handicap2.

1 As to the meaning of ‘public interest’ see [245.001].

2 Jagram v Gwalior T & C Development Authority AIR 1987 MP 11 [LNIND 1985 MP 41].
3 Parthasarthi v Union of India (1992) 2 Mad LJ 257.
4 Gyani Devender Singh Sant Sepoy Sikh v Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1847 [LNIND 1995 SC 11].

End of Document
[245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (4) ROLE OF COURTS > B. MAINTAINABILITY AND
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(3.) LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

B. MAINTAINABILITY AND WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions

No person has a right to waive the rule of locus standi and the courts must permit it only when it is satisfied that the
carriage of proceedings is in the competent hands of a person who is genuinely concerned in public interest and is
not moved by other extraneous considerations. The court must also be careful to ensure that the process of the
court is not sought to be abused1. Furthermore, once a public interest litigation has been initiated and the core facts
have been brought to the notice of the court, the petitioner must not of his volition withdraw the petition2. Thus, the
petitioner is not entitled to withdraw his petition at his will unless the courts see reasons to permit the withdrawal3.
This safety valve has been placed with a view to guard against the possibilities of such litigants settling the matters
out of court to their advantage and then seeking withdrawal of the case4.

1 S P Anand vHD Devagauda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].

2 Nand Kishore Nautiyal v Tehri Hydro Dev Corpn (2000) All LJ 2583.

3 S P Anand v H D Devegauda AIR 1997 SC 272 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].

4 See Chaitanya Kumar v State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 825 [LNIND 1986 SC 115].

End of Document
[245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (3.) LOCUS STANDI > (4) ROLE OF COURTS > B. MAINTAINABILITY AND
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

3. LOCUS STANDI

(4) ROLE OF COURTS

B. MAINTAINABILITY AND WITHDRAWAL OF PETITIONS

[245.037] Withdrawal of public interest actions

1 S P Anand vHD Devagauda (1996) 6 SCC 734 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].

2 Nand Kishore Nautiyal v Tehri Hydro Dev Corpn (2000) All LJ 2583.
3 S P Anand v H D Devegauda AIR 1997 SC 272 [LNIND 1996 SC 1845].
4 See Chaitanya Kumar v State of Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 825 [LNIND 1986 SC 115].

End of Document
[245.038] Letters as public interest petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.038] Letters as public interest petitions

For those who live in poverty and destitution and are helpless victims of society and do not have easy access to
justice, the courts will not insist upon a regular writ petition. In such cases the court will readily respond even to a
letter addressed by an individual acting pro bono publico. In such instances, the court will unhesitatingly cast aside
the technical rules of procedure and treat the letter of a public minded individual as a writ petition and act upon it1.

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.038] Letters as public interest petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.038] Letters as public interest petitions

1 S P Gupta v Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.

End of Document
[245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts

In view of the fact that the Supreme Court receives a large number of letters from different parts of the country
seeking relief regarding money matters, it was felt that it may not be possible for the court to take action on every
one of them. It is believed that in some cases the high court, having jurisdiction, may be able to deal with matters
more effectively as courts of first instance. Therefore, in all such cases where it is not possible for the Supreme
Court to take action and it is felt that the high court may deal with the matter effectively, the Supreme Court must
forward the letter to the high court having jurisdiction over the matters with a request to the high court to take
needful action on them1.

1 Re Naval Thakur, a convict kept in the Kulu jail (1984) 3 SCC 572 (In all such cases the high court to which the
document is sent may, if it is found necessary, call upon the person who sent it to appear before it, ascertain necessary
facts from him and proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law).

End of Document
[245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.039] Encouraging letter petitions to high courts

End of Document
[245.040] Insistence on regular petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.040] Insistence on regular petitions

In the practice of treating letters as petitions, the antecedent and the status of the person are unknown and,
therefore, no sense of responsibility may be attached to the communication1. The requirement of verification of a
plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 means that a petition or an application filed before the Supreme
Court is required to be supported by an affidavit to prevent the abuse of the process of law, and abuse of public
time and money2.

1 It is only recently that the courts have begun to call for the filing of regular petitions upon receipt of letters: see
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. See also Neeraja Chowdhry v State
of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 1099.

2 Neeraja Chowdhry v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 1099.

End of Document
[245.040] Insistence on regular petitions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.040] Insistence on regular petitions

1 It is only recently that the courts have begun to call for the filing of regular petitions upon receipt of letters: see Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v Union of India AIR 1984 SC 802 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. See also Neeraja Chowdhry v State of Madhya
Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 1099.
2 Neeraja Chowdhry v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 1099.

End of Document
[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions

The following are important questions formulated by the Supreme Court relating to the admissibility of letter
petitions1:

(1) must the court take notice of letters addressed by individuals by post enclosing some paper cuttings and
take action on them suo moto except where the complaint refers to deprivation of liberty upon an individual;

(2) must such letters be sent to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Society by the registrar with a request to
examine whether there is any prima facie case which is required to be considered by the court;

(3) may a stranger to the cause, be he a journalist, social worker, advocate or an association of such persons
initiate action before the court in matters alleged to be involving public interest or must a petitioner have
some interest in common with others whose rights are infringed by some governmental action or inaction in
order to establish his locus standi to make such a complaint;

(4) may the court take action on such letters though there is no prima facie case of infringement of any
fundamental right;

(5) even in cases where a fundamental right is stated to have been infringed, may the court take action on
such letters where there is no allegation that the person concerned is kept in illegal custody;

(6) may the court take action on such letters in matters for which remedy lies in ordinary civil, criminal or
revenue courts or other offices on the ground that a number of persons are affected;

(7) may the court take action on letters addressed to it where the facts disclosed are not sufficient to take
action. Must these letters be treated differently from other regular petitions filed in the court in this regard
and must the district magistrate of district judge be asked to inquire and make a report to the court to
ascertain whether there is any case for further action;

(8) if, after investigation, it is found that by such letter, a baseless complaint has been made, must not costs be
imposed on the person who had written it. Can he be treated differently from others;

(9) must a petitioner who has an interest in common with others whose rights are alleged to have been
infringed be exempted from paying court fees and from all other relevant rules of the Supreme Court when
Page 2 of 2
[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions

he writes a letter to the court complaining about such infringement. Must all the relevant rules be
suspended when a complaint is made through a letter;

(10) if the court may take action on such letters in such an informal manner, why must not the high courts and
other courts, authorities and officers in India also act in the same way in all matters; and
(11) would such informality not lead to greater identification of the court with the cause than it would be when a
case involving the same type of cause is filed in the regular manner.

1 Sudip Mazumdar v State of Madhya Pradesh (1983) 2 SCC 258.

End of Document
[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (1) LETTER PETITIONS:
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(1) LETTER PETITIONS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions

The following are important questions formulated by the Supreme Court relating to the admissibility of letter
petitions1:
(1) must the court take notice of letters addressed by individuals by post enclosing some paper cuttings and
take action on them suo moto except where the complaint refers to deprivation of liberty upon an individual;
(2) must such letters be sent to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Society by the registrar with a request to
examine whether there is any prima facie case which is required to be considered by the court;
(3) may a stranger to the cause, be he a journalist, social worker, advocate or an association of such persons
initiate action before the court in matters alleged to be involving public interest or must a petitioner have
some interest in common with others whose rights are infringed by some governmental action or inaction in
order to establish his locus standi to make such a complaint;
(4) may the court take action on such letters though there is no prima facie case of infringement of any
fundamental right;
(5) even in cases where a fundamental right is stated to have been infringed, may the court take action on
such letters where there is no allegation that the person concerned is kept in illegal custody;
(6) may the court take action on such letters in matters for which remedy lies in ordinary civil, criminal or
revenue courts or other offices on the ground that a number of persons are affected;
(7) may the court take action on letters addressed to it where the facts disclosed are not sufficient to take
action. Must these letters be treated differently from other regular petitions filed in the court in this regard
and must the district magistrate of district judge be asked to inquire and make a report to the court to
ascertain whether there is any case for further action;
(8) if, after investigation, it is found that by such letter, a baseless complaint has been made, must not costs be
imposed on the person who had written it. Can he be treated differently from others;
(9) must a petitioner who has an interest in common with others whose rights are alleged to have been
infringed be exempted from paying court fees and from all other relevant rules of the Supreme Court when
he writes a letter to the court complaining about such infringement. Must all the relevant rules be
suspended when a complaint is made through a letter;
(10) if the court may take action on such letters in such an informal manner, why must not the high courts and
other courts, authorities and officers in India also act in the same way in all matters; and
(11) would such informality not lead to greater identification of the court with the cause than it would be when a
case involving the same type of cause is filed in the regular manner.
Page 2 of 2
[245.041] Letter petitions: some questions

1 Sudip Mazumdar v State of Madhya Pradesh (1983) 2 SCC 258.

End of Document
[245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (i) Generally

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(i) Generally

[245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial

Public interest litigation is not a litigation of an adversarial nature undertaken for the purpose of holding the state
government or its officers responsible for making reparations. It involves collaborative and cooperative efforts on
the part of the state government and its officers, the lawyers appearing in case and the bench, for the purpose of
making human rights meaningful for the weaker sections of community1. The state or public authority against whom
public interest litigation is brought must be as much interested in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well
as legal, to those who are in a socially and economically disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the
public interest litigation before the court. The state or public authority which is arrayed as a respondent in public
interest litigations must, in fact, welcome it, as it would give it an opportunity to redress any injustice done to the
poor and weaker sections of the community whose welfare is and must be the prime concern of the state or the
public authority2.

When a court entertains a public interest litigation, it does not do so in a cavilling or confrontational spirit, but its
attempt is only to ensure the observance of social and economic rescue programmes, legislative as well as
executive, framed for the benefit of the ‘have nots’ and the handicapped and to protect them against the violation of
their basic human rights. The statutory body of the government is bound to respond and join the proceedings
pending before the courts in a public interest action3.

2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India.

3 Public interest litigation is not normal litigation with adversaries pitted against each other: Vincent Pamikur Langara v
Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165 [LNIND 1987 SC 898] (in matters involving health issues of national importance, the
Supreme Court ensured cooperation of all the parties and suo moto extended the opportunity of hearing, inviting the
named statutory authority to assist the court). See further [160] HUMAN RIGHTS.

End of Document
[245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (i) Generally

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(i) Generally

[245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial

1 Upendra Baxi (II) v State of Uttar Pradesh (1986) 4 SCC 106 [LNIND 1986 SC 232]. See also Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh (1989) Supp 1 SCC 504 (the court pointed out that the writ petitions before
it were not inter-party disputes but had been raised by way of public interest litigation).
2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India.
3 Public interest litigation is not normal litigation with adversaries pitted against each other: Vincent Pamikur Langara v
Union of India (1987) 2 SCC 165 [LNIND 1987 SC 898] (in matters involving health issues of national importance, the
Supreme Court ensured cooperation of all the parties and suo moto extended the opportunity of hearing, inviting the
named statutory authority to assist the court). See further [160] HUMAN RIGHTS.
Page 2 of 2
[245.042] Public interest litigation: essentially non-adversarial

End of Document
[245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(A) Generally

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(A) Generally

[245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures

The non-adversarial nature of litigation1 enables the court to get the evidence collected with the cooperation of the
counsel of the parties and the state and mete out justice to protect the constitutional rights guaranteed to all
citizens, and in particular, the vulnerable segments of the society2.

1 See [245.042].

2 Gorav Jain v Union of India (1997) 4 Scale 657 [LNIND 1997 SC 917] (new methods, tools and procedures have
been evolved to mete out justice and to enforce fundamental rights). See further [245.044].

End of Document
[245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(A) Generally

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(A) Generally

[245.043] Enabling relaxed procedures

1 See [245.042].
2 Gorav Jain v Union of India (1997) 4 Scale 657 [LNIND 1997 SC 917] (new methods, tools and procedures have been
evolved to mete out justice and to enforce fundamental rights). See further [245.044].

End of Document
[245.044] Some instances
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(B) Procedural Innovations

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(B) Procedural Innovations

[245.044] Some instances

Where a letter showing widespread exploitation of migrant workmen in violation of various welfare laws was
addressed to the court, it was treated as a writ petition1. Directions were issued to the labour commissioner to
inquire into the matter and submit a report, and to the Central Government, to file an affidavit2. Likewise, in the case
on the plight of bonded labourers, the court evolved a new procedure supplementing the existing one to meet the
new position and to render justice in public interest litigations3. It directed the labour commissioner to investigate
and collect evidence and submit the report to the court4. Similarly, in another public interest litigation to release and
rehabilitate the bonded labourers, the court obtained a report of the committee appointed by the court. It accepted
the report and then gave directions to implement the committee’s recommendations to the state government for the
rehabilitation of bonded labourers5.

1 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32: see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

2 Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 2 SCC 181 [LNIND 1983 SC 75]
(after the receipt of the report and the affidavit, the court found that the assertions in the letter petition were correct and
directions were given accordingly). See also Gorav Jain v Union of India (1997) 4 Scale 657 [LNIND 1997 SC 917];
Salal Hydro Project v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 2 SCC 181 [LNIND 1983 SC 75].
Page 2 of 2
[245.044] Some instances

3 As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

4 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

5 Santhal Pargana Antyodaya Ashram v State of Bihar (1987) Supp SCC 141.

End of Document
[245.044] Some instances
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(B) Procedural Innovations

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(B) Procedural Innovations

[245.044] Some instances

1 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32: see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
2 Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 2 SCC 181 [LNIND 1983 SC 75] (after
the receipt of the report and the affidavit, the court found that the assertions in the letter petition were correct and
directions were given accordingly). See also Gorav Jain v Union of India (1997) 4 Scale 657 [LNIND 1997 SC 917];
Salal Hydro Project v State of Jammu & Kashmir (1983) 2 SCC 181 [LNIND 1983 SC 75].
3 As to public interest litigation see ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].
4 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].
5 Santhal Pargana Antyodaya Ashram v State of Bihar (1987) Supp SCC 141.

End of Document
[245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(C) Procedures in Accordance with Judicial Tenets

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(C) Procedures in Accordance with Judicial Tenets

[245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets

The court must exercise the greatest caution and adopt procedures ensuring sufficient notice to all interests likely to
be affected. The procedure adopted by the courts must be one, which is known to the judicial tenets, and be
characteristic of judicial proceedings. There are methods and avenues of procuring material available to the
executive and legislative agencies, and often employed by them for efficient and effective discharge of the tasks
before them. Not all these methods and avenues are available to the courts1.

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Government of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (the courts must ever remind
themselves that the one indicia identifying them as courts is the nature and character of the procedure adopted by them
in determining a controversy).

End of Document
[245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (ii) New Procedures of Investigation >
(C) Procedures in Accordance with Judicial Tenets

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(ii) New Procedures of Investigation

(C) Procedures in Accordance with Judicial Tenets

[245.045] Non-digression from judicial tenets

End of Document
[245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (iii) Basis for Non-adversarial Procedures

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(iii) Basis for Non-adversarial Procedures

[245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure

The Constitution of India 19501 confers upon the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders or writs
including the writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The conferral of the aforesaid power
upon the court demonstrates the concern of the makers of the Constitution so as not to allow any procedural
technicalities to stand in the way of the enforcement of fundamental rights2.

1 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32(2): see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION > (iii) Basis for Non-adversarial Procedures

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

A. NON-ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

(iii) Basis for Non-adversarial Procedures

[245.046] Basis for non-adversarial procedure

1 Ie under the Constitution of India 1950 art 32(2): see [80] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct

An adversarial procedure is one where each party produces its own evidence tested by cross examination by the
other side and the judge decides the case only on the basis of the material placed before him by both the parties1.
In recent times, adversarial litigation has drawn a lot of criticism and there is an increasing tendency to depart from
strict norms.

The adversarial procedure reflected by evidence led by either party and tested by cross examination by the other
party has become a part of Indian legal system as it is embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Indian
Evidence Act 18722. The use of the dynamics of public interest litigation represents the creation of a new
jurisdiction for enforcing fundamental rights3.

2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (these statutes have no application
where a new jurisdiction is created in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundament rights). See generally [65]
CIVIL PROCEDURE and [145] EVIDENCE.

3 See P Nulla Thampy v Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 598 [LNIND 1983 SC 320]. As to public interest litigation see
[005.330].
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

End of Document
[245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245.047] Adversarial procedure whether sacrosanct

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (there is nothing sacrosanct about the
adversarial procedure and in fact it is not followed in many other countries where the civil systems of law prevails).
2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (these statutes have no application
where a new jurisdiction is created in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundament rights). See generally [65]
CIVIL PROCEDURE and [145] EVIDENCE.

3 See P Nulla Thampy v Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 598 [LNIND 1983 SC 320]. As to public interest litigation see
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [005.330].

End of Document
[245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice

There is a considerable body of juristic opinion in India which believes that strict adherence to adversarial
procedure may sometimes lead to injustice, particularly where the parties are not evenly balanced in social or
economical strength1. Therefore, when the poor or the weak come before the court, particularly for the enforcement
of fundamental right, it is necessary to depart from the adversarial procedure. If the adversarial procedure is blindly
followed, the weaker section of society will never be able to enforce their fundamental rights2.

2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. (the judicial process, particularly
where it involves a question of enforcement of fundamental rights, must be amended so as to forge new tools, devise
new methods and adopt new strategies for the purpose of making the fundamental rights meaningful for the large
masses of people).

End of Document
[245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (2) COOPERATIVE
LITIGATION > B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(2) COOPERATIVE LITIGATION

B. ADVERSARIAL LITIGATION

[245.048] Relevance of adversarial litigation for accessing justice

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (where one of the parties to a
litigation belongs to a poor and deprived section of the community and does not possess adequate social and material
resources, he is bound to be at a disadvantage as against a strong and powerful opponent under the adversary system
of justice because of his difficulty in getting competent legal representation and his inability to produce relevant
evidence before the court).
2 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564]. (the judicial process, particularly
where it involves a question of enforcement of fundamental rights, must be amended so as to forge new tools, devise
new methods and adopt new strategies for the purpose of making the fundamental rights meaningful for the large
masses of people).

End of Document
[245.049] Need for investigative litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (3) INVESTIGATIVE
LITIGATION > A. GENERALLY

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(3) INVESTIGATIVE LITIGATION

A. GENERALLY

[245.049] Need for investigative litigation

Where an action is brought on behalf of the poor and the disadvantaged by any citizen acting pro bono publico, it
may not always be possible for him to gather all the relevant material and place it before the court. In such cases,
the Supreme Court and the high courts would be failing in discharge of their Constitutional duties if they refuse to
intervene1.

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.049] Need for investigative litigation
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (3) INVESTIGATIVE
LITIGATION > A. GENERALLY

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(3) INVESTIGATIVE LITIGATION

A. GENERALLY

[245.049] Need for investigative litigation

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564].

End of Document
[245.050] When must a commission be appointed
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (3) INVESTIGATIVE
LITIGATION > B. COMMISSIONS > (i) Appointment of Commissions

([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

(4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(3) INVESTIGATIVE LITIGATION

B. COMMISSIONS

(i) Appointment of Commissions

[245.050] When must a commission be appointed

A commissioner is appointed by the courts either for ascertaining facts or for ensuring that the parties carry out the
directions that may be issued by the court. The commissioner is, however, appointed to ascertain facts only if on
the basis of the knowledge so acquired, the court is able to offer effective relief in the case1. If no relief may be
granted, the court must refrain from appointing a commissioner only for the purposes of satisfying its own curiosity2.
However, it may take recourse to the appointment of such a commission when the truth cannot be found out
otherwise. Where the allegations are verifiable on records, the court may itself examine the same3.

2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Ministry of Home Affairs AIR 1985 Del 268 [LNIND 1985 DEL 126].

3 GuruvayurDewaswomManaging Committee vCKRajan (2003) 6 Scale 401 [LNIND 2003 SC 672] (only when the
court arrives at a prima facie finding that ‘all is not well’, it must appoint a commissioner).

End of Document
[245.050] When must a commission be appointed
Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation)

Halsbury's Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > Halsbury's
Laws Of India (Registration and Statistics; Public Interest Litigation) > ([245]) PUBLIC INTEREST
LITIGATION > (4.) RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION > (3) INVESTIGATIVE
LITIGATION > B. COMMISSIONS > (i) Appointment of Commissions

[245] PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

4. RELAXING PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION

(3) INVESTIGATIVE LITIGATION

B. COMMISSIONS

(i) Appointment of Commissions

[245.050] When must a commission be appointed

1 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [LNIND 1983 SC 564] (a commissioner was appointed
where the very violation of fundamental rights of the bonded labourers was denied). See Peoples Union for Democratic
Rights v Ministry of Home Affairs AIR 1985 Del 268 [LNIND 1985 DEL 126]
2 Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v Ministry of Home Affairs AIR 1985 Del 268 [LNIND 1985 DEL 126].
3 GuruvayurDewaswomManaging Committee vCKRAJAN (2003) 6 Scale 401 [LNIND 2003 SC 672] (only when the court
arrives at a prima facie finding that ‘all is not well’, it must appoint a commissioner).

End of Document

Court Cell Rules The Conduct of The Legal Affairs of Government 1984
0% (2)
Court Cell Rules The Conduct of The Legal Affairs of Government 1984
182 pages
Writ Appeal
No ratings yet
Writ Appeal
7 pages
E-Notes - Environmental Law - LLB 301
No ratings yet
E-Notes - Environmental Law - LLB 301
158 pages
Introduction (2-3 Pages) : Meaning of Consumer
No ratings yet
Introduction (2-3 Pages) : Meaning of Consumer
10 pages
Law Commission Report No. 37 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1889
No ratings yet
Law Commission Report No. 37 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1889
259 pages
Promising Pleaders
No ratings yet
Promising Pleaders
47 pages
Chanakya National Law University: Public Interest Litigation
No ratings yet
Chanakya National Law University: Public Interest Litigation
21 pages
Part C EL
No ratings yet
Part C EL
30 pages
Gender Auditing
No ratings yet
Gender Auditing
22 pages
Torts Assignment 1
No ratings yet
Torts Assignment 1
14 pages
Law Commission Report70
No ratings yet
Law Commission Report70
712 pages
Vol 5
No ratings yet
Vol 5
1,240 pages
Compressed Reading Material P-1247 - Pagenumber
No ratings yet
Compressed Reading Material P-1247 - Pagenumber
1,649 pages
0321307202013TH July Final List
No ratings yet
0321307202013TH July Final List
251 pages
15-Iyer Committee Report of The Expert Committee in Legal Aid, 1973
No ratings yet
15-Iyer Committee Report of The Expert Committee in Legal Aid, 1973
279 pages
Assignment On "Rights - Theory, Meaning, Definition and Classification"
No ratings yet
Assignment On "Rights - Theory, Meaning, Definition and Classification"
18 pages
COPRA SupremeCourt
No ratings yet
COPRA SupremeCourt
108 pages
Admin Law 2
No ratings yet
Admin Law 2
284 pages
Moot Problem - Prarthana Ramesh (17bla1010) Alert Indiva vs. State of Bramha and Other
50% (2)
Moot Problem - Prarthana Ramesh (17bla1010) Alert Indiva vs. State of Bramha and Other
3 pages
GP Singh On IoS Continued
No ratings yet
GP Singh On IoS Continued
1,214 pages
Hostel Handbook 2014
No ratings yet
Hostel Handbook 2014
21 pages
SC 2001 Dr. Mohiuddin Faroque and Ors. v. Government of Bangladesh and Ors PDF
No ratings yet
SC 2001 Dr. Mohiuddin Faroque and Ors. v. Government of Bangladesh and Ors PDF
15 pages
Pu Holidays 2022
No ratings yet
Pu Holidays 2022
2 pages
Sathyam Committee Report Textiles
100% (1)
Sathyam Committee Report Textiles
489 pages
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs State of Maharashtra AS041060COM102346
No ratings yet
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs State of Maharashtra AS041060COM102346
6 pages
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
No ratings yet
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments
6 pages
Good Governance Committee Report 2023080199
No ratings yet
Good Governance Committee Report 2023080199
182 pages
Resume Format For Bank Jobs PDF
No ratings yet
Resume Format For Bank Jobs PDF
21 pages
Documents (89) : About Lexisnexis Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions
No ratings yet
Documents (89) : About Lexisnexis Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions
731 pages
UIDAI Writ Petition
No ratings yet
UIDAI Writ Petition
97 pages
Underweight Assessment Parameters Final-1
No ratings yet
Underweight Assessment Parameters Final-1
3 pages
PLD 2021 Lahore 720
No ratings yet
PLD 2021 Lahore 720
12 pages
Kerala Land Revenue Commisionerate Manual - James Joseph Adhikarathil Realutionz Your Property Problem Solver 9447464502
No ratings yet
Kerala Land Revenue Commisionerate Manual - James Joseph Adhikarathil Realutionz Your Property Problem Solver 9447464502
210 pages
Vicarious Liability Torts
No ratings yet
Vicarious Liability Torts
11 pages
University Institute of Legal Studies Panjab University, Chandigarh
No ratings yet
University Institute of Legal Studies Panjab University, Chandigarh
11 pages
Articles 32 & 226 - Supreme Court Judgments On Scope of Writ Jurisdiction (2021)
No ratings yet
Articles 32 & 226 - Supreme Court Judgments On Scope of Writ Jurisdiction (2021)
11 pages
CRPC 2
No ratings yet
CRPC 2
598 pages
Memorial For Team Code TM 15 (P)
No ratings yet
Memorial For Team Code TM 15 (P)
32 pages
Assignment Pol Sci-Federal Form of Government
No ratings yet
Assignment Pol Sci-Federal Form of Government
18 pages
Section 1 To 90
No ratings yet
Section 1 To 90
190 pages
Gurdeep Singh Sachar
No ratings yet
Gurdeep Singh Sachar
21 pages
9180652084-The Gore Committee Report On Police Training PDF
No ratings yet
9180652084-The Gore Committee Report On Police Training PDF
312 pages
Judicial Pronouncement On Cyber Law.
0% (1)
Judicial Pronouncement On Cyber Law.
114 pages
Swimming Form
No ratings yet
Swimming Form
4 pages
Compendium On Prosecution in GST
No ratings yet
Compendium On Prosecution in GST
132 pages
Indian Contract Act Important Case Laws
No ratings yet
Indian Contract Act Important Case Laws
102 pages
Iu06 Essay
No ratings yet
Iu06 Essay
7 pages
Bentham Princ Legislation
No ratings yet
Bentham Princ Legislation
324 pages
Kanga & Palkhivala IT Act 10th Ed Vol II CH 14A-16
No ratings yet
Kanga & Palkhivala IT Act 10th Ed Vol II CH 14A-16
234 pages
Arguements Deo Mangal Online Moot
No ratings yet
Arguements Deo Mangal Online Moot
15 pages
Role of Prosecution and Courts in CBI Cases
No ratings yet
Role of Prosecution and Courts in CBI Cases
172 pages
PIL Record
No ratings yet
PIL Record
102 pages
Institute: University University, Rtigration of
No ratings yet
Institute: University University, Rtigration of
2 pages
Law Commission Report No. 200 - Trial by Media, Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments To The Contempt of Court Act, 1971), 2006
100% (1)
Law Commission Report No. 200 - Trial by Media, Free Speech vs. Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments To The Contempt of Court Act, 1971), 2006
240 pages
06 - Chapter 2
No ratings yet
06 - Chapter 2
72 pages
Law Commission Report No. 178 - Recommendations For Amending Various Enactments, Both Civil and Criminal, 2001
0% (1)
Law Commission Report No. 178 - Recommendations For Amending Various Enactments, Both Civil and Criminal, 2001
145 pages
The Police Act, 1861
100% (1)
The Police Act, 1861
104 pages
A Lawyer and His Legal Research
No ratings yet
A Lawyer and His Legal Research
148 pages
MP Singh Admin Book (Mid Term)
No ratings yet
MP Singh Admin Book (Mid Term)
240 pages
Judiciary: " A Watching Tower Above All The Big Structures of The Other Limbs of Government"
No ratings yet
Judiciary: " A Watching Tower Above All The Big Structures of The Other Limbs of Government"
101 pages
Law-Ii: Code Exam. Code
No ratings yet
Law-Ii: Code Exam. Code
2 pages
Saurabh Kirpal Sex and The Supreme Court - How The Law Is Upholding The Dignity of The Indian Citizen
No ratings yet
Saurabh Kirpal Sex and The Supreme Court - How The Law Is Upholding The Dignity of The Indian Citizen
336 pages
Consumer Protection Law Practice: (Enforced With Effect From 20-7-2020 / 24-7-2020)
No ratings yet
Consumer Protection Law Practice: (Enforced With Effect From 20-7-2020 / 24-7-2020)
244 pages
Administrative Law
No ratings yet
Administrative Law
181 pages
Drafting - CS Subham Modi - PDF
No ratings yet
Drafting - CS Subham Modi - PDF
364 pages
Critique On Pmla
No ratings yet
Critique On Pmla
176 pages
Universal Bare Acts
No ratings yet
Universal Bare Acts
100 pages
87620ca5426bb1d6beafd06a9c35de35
No ratings yet
87620ca5426bb1d6beafd06a9c35de35
171 pages
The Republic of Rambo-2
No ratings yet
The Republic of Rambo-2
2 pages
Judges Enqury Report
No ratings yet
Judges Enqury Report
152 pages
Law Commission Report No. 179 - Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers, 2001
No ratings yet
Law Commission Report No. 179 - Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers, 2001
114 pages
KARNATAKA UPDATED STAMP ACT (As of May 2024)
No ratings yet
KARNATAKA UPDATED STAMP ACT (As of May 2024)
106 pages
Law Commission Report No. 58 - Structure and Jurisdication of The Higher Judiciary
No ratings yet
Law Commission Report No. 58 - Structure and Jurisdication of The Higher Judiciary
144 pages
Public Interest Litigation by Madhu
100% (3)
Public Interest Litigation by Madhu
30 pages
01 Elements of Crime3535907
No ratings yet
01 Elements of Crime3535907
3 pages
Law Commission Report No. 192 - Prevention of Vexatious Litigation, 2005
No ratings yet
Law Commission Report No. 192 - Prevention of Vexatious Litigation, 2005
101 pages
Decleration by Architect, Engineer Etc.. Regarding The Fire Protection Requirement
No ratings yet
Decleration by Architect, Engineer Etc.. Regarding The Fire Protection Requirement
1 page
The Kerala Stamp Act
No ratings yet
The Kerala Stamp Act
63 pages
Kaivasa Register - Kerala Land Revenue Department - Taluk Offices Uploaded by T James Joseph Adhikarathil
0% (1)
Kaivasa Register - Kerala Land Revenue Department - Taluk Offices Uploaded by T James Joseph Adhikarathil
2 pages
The Court and The Constitution of India - O.chinnappa Reddy - PDF Version 1
No ratings yet
The Court and The Constitution of India - O.chinnappa Reddy - PDF Version 1
385 pages
FOI Guidelines FOI Act Exemptions
No ratings yet
FOI Guidelines FOI Act Exemptions
115 pages
E Court
No ratings yet
E Court
147 pages
Salmond's Legal Theory
No ratings yet
Salmond's Legal Theory
6 pages
Constitution Final Notes ALL
No ratings yet
Constitution Final Notes ALL
223 pages
The Elements of Jurisprudence 2023 Jhab
100% (1)
The Elements of Jurisprudence 2023 Jhab
248 pages
Compilation of Important CIC Orders
No ratings yet
Compilation of Important CIC Orders
202 pages
The Constitutionalization of Indian Private Law
No ratings yet
The Constitutionalization of Indian Private Law
16 pages
Extract From Mogha's Indian Conveyancer
No ratings yet
Extract From Mogha's Indian Conveyancer
24 pages
Memorial 1
No ratings yet
Memorial 1
33 pages
Public International Law 1
No ratings yet
Public International Law 1
276 pages
Case Planning Chart
No ratings yet
Case Planning Chart
2 pages
Preliminary Round 2 Proposition
No ratings yet
Preliminary Round 2 Proposition
3 pages
Values and Ethics
No ratings yet
Values and Ethics
34 pages
Summer Course Outline - Public Interest Lawyering The Law and The Political Context And-Or Judicialization of Politics in Pakistan - Usama Khawar
No ratings yet
Summer Course Outline - Public Interest Lawyering The Law and The Political Context And-Or Judicialization of Politics in Pakistan - Usama Khawar
5 pages
Assignment 1 Doctrinal V Non Doctrinal
No ratings yet
Assignment 1 Doctrinal V Non Doctrinal
15 pages
Main
No ratings yet
Main
41 pages
The Role of Judiciary in Upholding Human Rights - Edzorb Law
No ratings yet
The Role of Judiciary in Upholding Human Rights - Edzorb Law
5 pages
Why Law Students Should Study The Course On Environmental Studies and The Law 2
No ratings yet
Why Law Students Should Study The Course On Environmental Studies and The Law 2
5 pages
SS STD 9 GSEB UT CH 5,6,11,17 - Solution
No ratings yet
SS STD 9 GSEB UT CH 5,6,11,17 - Solution
7 pages
Interpretation of Statutes
No ratings yet
Interpretation of Statutes
129 pages
2IE1013 Public Interest Lawyering
No ratings yet
2IE1013 Public Interest Lawyering
4 pages
Public Interest Litigation at The Intersection of Public Law and Private Enforcement
No ratings yet
Public Interest Litigation at The Intersection of Public Law and Private Enforcement
12 pages
Unit 6public Interest Lawyering Skills and Legal Aid (10 HRS)
No ratings yet
Unit 6public Interest Lawyering Skills and Legal Aid (10 HRS)
20 pages
Mastering the Stock Market: A Comprehensive Guide to Investing and Trading
From Everand
Mastering the Stock Market: A Comprehensive Guide to Investing and Trading
Mike Ike
No ratings yet
Leave and Licenses in India: A Guide with Helpful Notes and Tips
From Everand
Leave and Licenses in India: A Guide with Helpful Notes and Tips
Pritish Prabhu
No ratings yet