SP Gupta v.

UOI: Guidelines on PIL

1. Bonded Labour matters
2. Neglected Children.
3. Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual
workers and complaints of violation of Labour Laws (except in individual
cases).
4. Petitions from jails complaining of harassment, for (pre-mature release)*
and seeking release after having completed 14 years in jail, death in jail,
transfer, release on personal bond, speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Petitions for premature release, parole etc. are not matters which
deserve to be treated as petitions u/Article 32.
Even in regard to petitions containing allegations against Jail
Authorities
(5) Petitions against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police
and death in police custody.
(6) Petitions against atrocities on women, in particular harassment of bride,
bride#burning, rape, murder, kidnapping etc.
(7) Petitions complaining of harassment or torture of villagers by co- villagers or
by police from persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and
economically backward classes.
(8) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological
balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques,
forest and wild life and other matters of public importance.
(9) Petitions from riot -victims.
(10) Family Pension.
Cases falling under the following categories will not be entertained as Public
Interest Litigation and these may be returned to the petitioners or filed in the
PIL
Cell, as the case may be:
(1) Landlord-Tenant matters.
(2) Service matter and those pertaining to Pension and Gratuity.
(3) Complaints against Central/ State Government Departments and Local Bodies
except those relating to item Nos. (1) to (10) above.
(4) Admission to medical and other educational institution.
(5) Petitions for early hearing of cases pending in High Courts and Subordinate
Courts.
In regard to the petitions concerning maintenance of wife, children and parents,
the petitioners may be asked to file a Petition under sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. Or a
Suit
in the Court of competent jurisdiction and for that purpose to approach the nearest
Legal Aid Committee for legal aid and advice

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra[8], the case dealt with a historical judgment
on the issue of custodial violence against women. The Court held that there must be
separate police lockups for women convicts to protect them from further trauma and
brutality.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[9], it lead to the landmark judgment which lashed out
at the civic authorities allowing untreated sewage from Kanpur tanneries making its
way into the Ganges.

Paramanand Katara v. Union of India[10] , Supreme Court held that in the field of
Public Interest Litigation, which was filed by a human rights activist for general
public interest that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical
profession to give medical aid to injured person as soon as possible without
waiting for any procedural formalities.

Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary, [(AIR 1993 SC 892) (see here)], held that lexically,
the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action started in a court of law for the
enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular class of
the public some interest (including pecuniary interest) that affects their legal
rights or liabilities.

Kushum Lata v. Union of India {[(2006) 6 SCC 180] (see here)}. However, courts have
held that even if the petitioner had approached the court for his own private
interest due to his personal grievances, the court may treat it necessary to
inquire into the subject of the litigation and its state of affairs in furtherance
of public interest.

In environmental law cases, the courts have formulated and evolved several concepts
including the Polluter Pays Principle, the Precautionary Principle, the Public
Trust Doctrine and Sustainable Development.

Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Fertilizer corporation Kamgar union v. Union of
India[6] enumerated the following principles on Public Interest Litigation such as:
The exercise of State power to eradicate corruption may result in unrelated
interference ‘s of individuals right.
Social justice want’s liberal judicial review administrative action
Restrictive rules of standing are an antithesis to an effective system of
administration.
Activism is essential for participative public justice.

The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India
by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai.

Akhil Bharatiya Soshit

Karmchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India8
, wherein an unregistered association of workers was
permitted to institute a writ petition under Art.32 of the Constitution for the
redressal of common
grievances..

The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979)
that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners that
led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied
to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in subsequent cases.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India.
In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group
acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article
226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of
legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any
other disability cannot approach the Court. By this judgment PIL became a potent
weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where executive action or misdeed
resulted in public injury. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer
groups or social action groups can now approach the apex court of the country
seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of general public or a
section of the public are at stake.
Justice Bhagwati did a lot to ensure that the concept of PILs was clearly
enunciated. He did not insist on the observance of procedural technicalities and
even treated ordinary letters from public-minded individuals as writ petitions.
epistolary jurisdiction. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration5; Upendra Baxi v State
of UP6; and DK Basu v State of West Bengal7 found their way to the Supreme Court
through letters. The acceptance of such cognisance was reasoned by Bhagwati J. in
Bandhua Mukti Morcha8 on the ground that it is not right or fair to expect a person
acting pro bono public to incur expenses out of his own pocket to approach a lawyer
and prepare a regular writ petition.

Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and
Ors held :- “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have moved a court
in her private interest and for redressal of the personal grievance, the court in
furtherance of Public Interest may treat it a necessity to enquire into the state
of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest of justice.” Thus, a
private interest case can also be treated as public interest case.Indian Banks
Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors – In this
case, the Supreme Court declared that even a case filed for personal grievance
could be considered under PIL if it serves the public interest, enhancing judicial
oversight in matters affecting societal welfare.

M.C Mehta vs. Union of India: In a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga
water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme
Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the
court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested
in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: The judgement of the case recognized sexual

harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Article 14,
Article 15 and Article 21. The guidelines also directed for the Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the respondent
stating it would treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded labor unless
proven otherwise by the employer.

Asiad Workers judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting less
than the minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through
the labor commissioner and lower courts.

In 1995 it declared that health is the basic right of the

people and as such the doctors were brought under the consumer's law. The next
year the Supreme Court also declared that if the hospitals and the doctors refuse
to admit a serious patient, it would be considered as a punishable offence. It is
the doctor’s professional duty and responsibility this duty and to attend patients
and to take all possible steps to save his life. He cannot shirk responsibility. He
can’t neglect a patient’s treatment on any ground. In the case of doctor’s
negligence causing the death of a patient, the concerned medical staff must be
made accountable to criminal justice system

Since imparting education is essential the Supreme Court issued order

that no professional institution would charge any capitation fees for admitting
students. The court also regulated travelling sessions in medical and engineering
institutions. Even the Delhi High Court also ordered all the Public School to keep
compulsorily reserved some of their seats for the economically and socially
backward students

December 1996 the Supreme Court ordered to set up a Child Labour

Rehabilitation Worker Fund and the employers of the child workers are to
deposit these compulsorily a compensation of Rs. 20,000 per child worker and
rehabilitate them accordingly. Through PIL the court enforces constitutional or
legal right, protect human rights and dignity, resists exploitation and oppression
to children and women and attempts to secure and validate social justice to all.

Maneka
Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 is an illustration in point49. The Case was filed
following the refusal by the government to grant a passport to the petitioner,
which thus denied her liberty to travel. The case was heard and the court
proceeded to explain the scope and content of the right to life and liberty. The
court took a broader view of the scope and content of the fundamental right to
life and liberty. Article 21 which deals with the right to life was interpreted to
include a bundle of other incidental and integral rights.

On the basis of a PIL , filed by National Legal Services Authority urging the
Supreme Court to give separate identity to transgenders by recognizing them as
a third category of gender and directed the government to ensure that they
would get job , reservations, and facilities, including voter card , driving
license
and passport. “The apex court said, the group would be considered as socially
and economically backward classes and as entitled to reservations in jobs . The
centers and the states also directed to take steps for bringing the community into
the mainstream by providing adequate health care, education and
employment.”,“Recognition of transgender as a third gender is not merely a
social or medical issue but a human right issue.”The court observed that members of
transgender “are also citizens of India. It is
the right of every human being to choose their gender. The spirit of the
Constitution is to provide equal opportunity to every citizens to grow and attain
their potential, irrespective of caste, religion or gender.

It is true that PILs , namely Bhagalpur Blinding case, Bandhua Mukti Case,
Francis Coralie Mullin case, M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, Bishakha vs State of
Union and earlier Maneka vs. Union of India ( though not PIL strictly) are of
enormously important in ensuring social justice. Needless to say the famous
Chapter - VIII Public Interest Litigation and Social Justice
150
Golaknath vs. State of Punjab , and Keshavnanda Bharati vs, state of Kerala ,
though not coming strictly under the purview of PIL led to a host of social
legislation. In this dissertation, all this landmark cases appeared and reappeared
in previous chapters indicating their importance in our discussion. The impact of
Bishakha vs. State of Rajasthan on the question of social justice , are still
felt .
The sexual scandal involving Tarun Tejpal , the editor of Tahelka magazine of
New Delhi , the case of Vishakha vs. state of Rajasthan was aptly invoked .
Important point is , the gravity of the cases were so all comprehensive and all
pervasive , that its impact has crossed the boundaries of ages ; it would have
been effective to discuss the impacts of such landmarks judgments upon the
issues of Directive Principles of State Policy and Social Justice in Coalition
Politics. But space constraints is a bar to an elaboration of the direct and
indirect
impact of the cases of the judicial and executive initiative to implement various
Directive Principles

However, Indira Swahney case and Vishakah vs. State of Rajasthan are so
important in ensuring social justice and justice to women in the workplace , that
this point needs to be discussed as part of the analysis of research data. Even a
cursory glance of Indira Sawhney case would amply prove how the Directive
Principles and Fundamental Rights are interrelated in our Constitution. The
constitution-makers also shaped the Constitution from the perspective of
interrelationship between Directive Principles, Fundamental Rights and
Preamble.
In the case it was stated that , ‘Liberty , equality and fraternity’ was the battle
cry
of the French Revolution. It is also the motto of our Constitution, with the
concept of ‘justice- social economic and political’ – the sum total of modern
political thought . … liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship has
equally been an abiding faith of all human beings , and at all times in this
country
in particular. Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual has a special
relevance to the Indian context. as this judgment will illustrate in due course.

n Francies Coralie Mullin case the court declared. ''The right to life includes the
right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it, namely, the bare
necessity of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities
for
reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms freely moving about and
mixing and combining with fellow human beings. The magnitude and
components of this right would depend upon the content of economic
development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the
bare necessity of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities
as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human life.''50 (Francies
Coralie Mullin vs. The Administrator , Union Territory of Delhi

National Textile Workers Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishna, 1983,

the court observed ''It would indeed be strange that the workers who have
contributed to the building of enterprise as a centre of economic power should
have no right to be heard when it is sought to demolish that centre of economic
power

Minerva Mills Ltd

v Union of India where the Court held that the, ‘‘harmony and balance between
fundamental rights and
directive principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the
Constitution’’.

In BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd) v Union of India & Others A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 350,
this Court recognized that there have been, in recent times, increasing instances
of abuse of public interest litigation. Accordingly, the court has devised a number
of strategies to ensure that the attractive brand name of public interest
litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief.
Firstly, the Supreme Court has limited standing in PIL to individuals “acting
bonafide.” Secondly, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the imposition of “exemplary
costs” as a deterrent against frivolous and vexatious public interest litigations.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to be more selective in
entertaining the public interest litigations.

Judicial Activism
MC Mehta v Union of India,33 where the Court directed the Central Government to
indicate the steps taken for environmental policy and place before it any national
environmental protection policy; TN Godavarman Tirumulkpad v Union of India,34
where the Court constituted an expert committee to examine depletion of forest
cover, imposed restrictions on the felling of trees and sale of timber, and issued
a continuing mandamus to closely implement its orders; Vishaka v State of
Rajasthan,35 where the Court readily laid down guidelines which were to be
enforceable till such time the legislature enacted a law in compliance with CEDAW;
and DK Basu v State of West Bengal,36 where the Court laid down the procedure to be
followed by the police to arrest a person.State of Himachal Pradesh v Parent of a
Student of Medical College, Simla,40 the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s
direction to the state government to introduce anti-ragging legislation on the
ground that it interfered with the government’s prerogative.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha: Indeed, the citizen seems to find it more convenient to apply
to the Court for the vindication of constitutional rights than appeal to the
executive or legislative organs of the State”.

A failed attempt at regulating the misuse of the instrument was the Public Interest
(Regulation) Bill 1996 which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha but could not
receive the support of all political parties.