PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF LOCUS STANDI by - MANISHA KUMARI GUPTA,
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND THE
DOCTRINE OF LOCUS STANDI
Authored
by - MANISHA KUMARI GUPTA,
LL.M.
student at Chanakya National Law University
I.
INTRODUCTION
Public Interest Litigation in India
is a new idea, and for the growing public dependence on the legal process to
provide social remedy, it has opened up unlimited sectors by liberalising
and/or extending the norms of locus standi. In its common sense, it encompasses
all acts of carrying out a legal proceeding for the general public's benefit.
When the public or a portion of the public gets interested in a lawsuit, it is
deemed of public interest. Public encompasses any category of the public or any
group. A particular locale may also fall within the definition of public. In
common use, public refers to the whole human population or a nation. According
to Webster, it also refers to a specific body or group of individuals. Also
known as social action litigation. It is not restricted to this method
alone. With the advent of the Courts’ process for public relief, it has been
observed that statutes contain a number of provisions for extending such remedy
to the public in certain areas.
Convenience also demanded that if a
great number of people have a common interest, just a few should be permitted
to represent them all, liberalising the principle of locus standi, as in public
interest litigation, in order to save time and money. Under order I rule 8 and
8A of the Code of Civil Procedure[1],
as revised in 1973, this idea has been codified as representative suit with
approval of the court and notification to the parties.
Typically, those whose basic right
has been violated have the right to petition the court. Article 32 of the
Indian Constitution[2] restricts
its use to the enforcement of basic rights. The Supreme Court can only use its
power to uphold these rights. In the legal system, standing or locus standi
refers to a party's capacity to establish to the court a sufficient
relationship to and injury from the law or conduct being challenged to justify
their participation in the case. In the absence of sufficient standing, the
court will dismiss the action without examining the merits of the plaintiff's
claim. In Public Interest litigation, impartiality, forensic expertise,
procedural gamesmanship, and socio-legal insight are required. In light of
this, this article will examine the notion of locus standi in the context of
PIL. Additionally, it will be determined if this concept expands the scope of
PIL in India.
II.
PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA
Several of the individual rights that
compose the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3]are
recognised as fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights
include the right to life, equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the
right to seek judicial recourse before the Supreme Court and 21 High Courts of
India for its enforcement and protection.
Despite the fact that the Constitution
of India guarantees equal rights to all citizens regardless of race, gender,
religion, and other factors, and that the “directive principles of state policy”
require the government to provide a minimum standard of living to all citizens,
the promise has not been fulfilled. The majority of Indians have no certainty
of two healthy meals per day, work security, secure and clean housing, or an
education level that would enable them to comprehend their constitutional
rights and responsibilities. Indian media are filled with accounts of the
exploitation of children, women, peasants, the poor, and the working class by
landowners, factory owners, businesspeople, and the state's own employees, such
as police and revenue officers.
Despite the fact that India's higher
courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court have frequently been attentive to
the terrible socioeconomic realities and have occasionally provided relief to
the oppressed, the poor lack the power to represent themselves or to take
advantage of progressive laws. In 1982, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
extraordinary measures were required to ensure the full realisation of not only
civil and political rights, but also the enjoyment of economic, social, and
cultural rights, and in its landmark decision in the case of PUDR (People’s
Union for Democratic Rights) vs. Union of India[4],
it acknowledged that a third party could directly petition the Court and seek
its intervention in a matter by letter or other means. In this lawsuit, PUDR
argued, using the Constitution’s ban on “beggar” or forced labour and human
trafficking, that employees contracted to construct the vast sports facility at
the Asian Sports Village in Delhi were exploited. PUDR urged the Court to
recognise that the term “beggar” encompassed much more than coercing someone to
work against his or her will, and that work under exploitative and grotesquely
humiliating circumstances, or work that was not even compensated by minimum
wage requirements, was a violation of fundamental rights. As the Supreme Court
noted, the rule of law does not imply that the protection of the law must be
limited to a privileged few or that the law should be prostituted by vested
interests for the protection and maintenance of the status quo under the
pretext of enforcement of their civil and political rights. The poor have civil
and political rights, and the rule of law is intended for them as well,
although in practise it exists only on paper.
Hence, the court was ready to
recognise that it had a duty to advance the rights of the vulnerable and
underprivileged, even if this was at the request of persons or groups that
claimed no handicap. This type of litigation, called Public Interest Litigation
or Social Action Litigation by its leading proponent, Professor Upendra Baxi,
has granted the court "epistolar jurisdiction.”[5]
1.
CONCEPT
The Indian PIL is an upgraded version
of the PIL in the United States. According to the Ford Foundation of the United
States, [6]public
interest law (PIL) refers to activities that provide legal representation to
previously unrepresented organisations and interests. Such attempts have been
conducted in acknowledgment of the fact that the regular marketplace for legal
services unable to meet the needs of major demographic segments and important
interests. Among these organisations and interests include environmentalists,
consumers, racial and ethnic minorities, among others. During the emergency
period (1975-1977), the Indian judicial system exhibited a colonial character.
State persecution and official lawlessness were pervasive during times of
emergency. Hundreds of innocent individuals, including political opponents,
were imprisoned, and civil and political rights were completely violated. The
post-emergency period afforded the Supreme Court justices the opportunity to
disregard openly the constraints of Anglo-Saxon process in giving access to
justice for the poor.
Public Interest Litigation, sometimes
referred to as PIL, is litigation in the general public's best interests. Prior
to the 1980s, only the aggrieved party may personally knock on the doors of
justice and seek redress for his grievance; no one else could knock on the
doors of justice on behalf of the victim or the aggrieved party. In other
words, only the impacted parties had the legal standing to file a lawsuit and
continue the litigation, whereas the unaffected parties lacked the legal
standing to do so. Hence, there was no connection between the rights granted by
the Constitution of the Indian Union and the laws passed by the government and
the large majority of illiterate residents. Only those who: a) Have suffered a
legal harm because of a violation of his lawful right or legally protected
interest; or b) Are likely to incur a legal injury because of a breach of his
lawful right or legally protected interest have locus standi in Writ jurisdiction.
Prior to acquiring locus standi, a person was required to have a personal or
individual right that was violated or threatened to be infringed. He should
have been a person who had suffered or was going to suffer from bias, whether
financial or otherwise.
Generally, only the injured party has
the right to seek remedy under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
The post-emergency Supreme Court
addressed the issue of people's access to justice by implementing dramatic
revisions to the standards of locus standi and the injured party.
In 1979, the first documented
instance of PIL centred on the inhumane circumstances of jails and detainees
awaiting trial. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[7], a
lawyer filed a PIL based on a news article published in the Indian Express,
emphasising the condition of hundreds of undertrial detainees languishing in
various Bihar jails. These proceedings resulted in the release of almost 40
thousand convicts awaiting trial. The denial of these inmates' right to prompt
justice appeared as a violation of a key human right. The same established
procedure was utilised in following instances.
In 1981, Justice P. N. Bhagwati,in S.
P. Gupta v. Union of India[8] defined
the concept of PIL as follows: “Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused
to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any
constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any
constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal
wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determinate class of persons by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability
or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court
for relief, any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate
direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case any
breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of persons,
in this court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or
legal injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons.”
In Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay
and Ors. v. M/s Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors.,[9] the
Supreme Court ruled, “in an appropriate case, where the petitioner might have
moved a court in her private interest and for redress of the personal
grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may deem it necessary to
investigate the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the interest
of justice. Consequently, a case of private interest can simultaneously be
considered a case of public interest.”
In Guruvayur Devaswom Management
Committee And Others. v. C.K. Rajan and Ors[10],
the Supreme Court ruled, “The Courts exercising their power of judicial review
discovered to its dismay that the poorest of the poor, depraved, the
illiterate, the urban and rural unorganised labour sector, women, children,
handicapped by ‘ignorance, indigence, and illiteracy,’ and other down trodden
have either no access to justice or have been denied justice. ‘Social Interest
Litigation’ or ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is a new discipline of law that
aims to provide total justice to the aforementioned categories of individuals.
With the passage of time, its wingspan grew. The pro bono public courts
afforded jail prisoners relief, provided legal help, guided trial speed, upheld
human dignity, and covered various other areas. Representative actions, pro
bono publico, and test litigations were accepted in accordance with the current
emphasis on justice for the common man and as a necessary disincentive for
those who wish to circumvent the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance
on peripheral procedural deficiencies... Pro bono publico was a significant
aspect of the modern judicial system.”
“But they assigned the dockets a far
greater obligation to make the notion of justice accessible to underprivileged
segments of society. Public interest litigation is here to stay, and its
importance cannot be overstated. The courts evolved a compassionate
jurisprudence. Priority was to be given to substantive complaints regarding the
violation of rights instead of procedural issues. The locus standi rule was
weakened. Instead of being an impartial arbiter, the court became an active participant
in the administration of justice.”
2.
WRITE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 32 AND ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Under Article 32 of the Constitution,
the Supreme Court’s Writ Jurisdiction may be exercised for the infringement of basic
rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Every provision for
Fundamental Rights in a Constitution is useless unless there are effective
protections to ensure their execution. Due to the fact that the validity of
such rights may only be determined by the courts, the protections are of much
greater significance. In addition, enforcement depends on the degree of
judicial independence and the availability of suitable mechanisms within the
executive branch. Similar to the majority of Western constitutions, the Indian
Constitution has measures to ensure the implementation of Fundamental Rights.
These are as follows:
(a) The Indian Constitution protects
the Fundamental Rights against executive and legislative action. Article 13 of
the Constitution allows the courts to declare null and invalid any executive or
legislative action that violates the Fundamental Rights of any individual or
group of individuals.
b) The Judiciary also has the
authority to issue prerogative writs. These are the extraordinary remedies
available to people to enforce their rights against any state body. These are
the writs of Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo
Warranto. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have the authority to issue
writs.
(c) The State may not suspend the
Fundamental Rights granted to people by the Constitution, save in times of
national emergency, as stipulated in Article 359 of the Constitution[11].
A Basic Right may also be enforced by standard legal procedures, such as a
declaratory lawsuit or a legal defence.
Article 32, however, is known as the “Constitutional
Remedy” for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This clause has been
incorporated into the Bill of Rights, therefore it cannot be refused to
anybody. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar referred to Article 32 as the most vital provision,
without which the Constitution would be rendered null and void. It is sometimes
referred to as the Constitution's heart and soul. By incorporating Article 32
into the Basic Rights, the Supreme Court has been designated as their guardian
and guarantor. An application brought before the Supreme Court according to
Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be denied on technical grounds. In
addition to the five forms of writs specified by law, the Supreme Court may also
issue any additional relevant order. In addition, only matters relevant to the
Fundamental Rights can be decided in Article 32 procedures. Under Article 32,
the Supreme Court of India may issue Writs against any individual or authority
inside Indian territory. Where a violation of a Fundamental Right has been
shown, the Supreme Court cannot deny redress on the basis that the injured
party has recourse before another court or under the common law.
Moreover, the remedy cannot be
granted on the grounds that the disputed facts must be examined or proof must
be gathered. Even if the aggrieved party has not requested a specific Writ, the
Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, may award the
appropriate Writ and may even alter it to meet the case's exigencies. Often,
only the aggrieved party is permitted to petition the court. Yet, the Supreme
Court has maintained that in situations of social or public interest, anybody
may petition the Court. In accordance with their different Writ Jurisdictions,
a Public Interest Lawsuit can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
III. THE DOCTRINE OF LOCUS STANDI
The Latin maxim “Locus Standi” is
comprised of two words: ‘locus’ which means location, and ‘standi’ which
denotes the legal authority to file a lawsuit. So, collectively, it refers to
the right to appear in court or to file a lawsuit. According to this adage, a
person must demonstrate his legal ability before addressing the court. That
indicates that a person can only file a lawsuit when his personal interests are
violated or he is injured. This adage is one of the essential tenets of the
adversarial method of litigation.
The notion of locus standi is stated
in Indian Civil Procedure Code, Order 7 Rule 11.[12] Before
initiating any action, the plaintiff or appellant must establish his or her
locus standi, and the trial will then commence. If the criteria of locus standi
is not met, the court may dismiss the lawsuit regardless of its merit.
In accordance with order 7 Rule 11 of
the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, a party must adhere to certain requirements.
These components are listed below:
• Existence of Injury: In order to
file a lawsuit, the plaintiff must have incurred some sort of harm. According
to the Oxford definition, an injury is the violation of any legal right or any
other bodily or financial harm that a person has suffered. The harm might be
caused by either private parties or the government. Also, it is essential to
highlight that the harm may be actual or anticipated. In addition, the type of
the damage may be economic or non-economic.
• Causation: The term causality
refers to the link between cause and effect. It indicates that there must be a
substantial connection between the act of one party and the harm sustained by
the other. The primary objective of this element is to ensure that the
defendant's conduct caused the damage. It also assures that the alleged harm is
not the result of an independent or other third party.
Since independence, there has been an
alarming increase in poverty and unemployment. Several individuals lacked the
financial means to contact the court. Others ruthlessly exploited them, and
their legal rights were severely discriminated against. Due to poverty and
illiteracy, individuals did not seek the court since litigation was too
expensive. For this reason, the notion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was
created to alleviate the burden of law. It was the product of judicial activism
directed towards achieving justice in the truest sense.
The courts developed a humane legal
philosophy. Preference was to be given to substantial allegations about the
infringement of rights above procedural concerns. The rule of locus standi was
weakened. Instead of serving as an unbiased arbitrator, the court became a
participant in the administration of justice.
IV.
IMPORTANT SUBJECTS IN PIL DESIGNATED BY THE COURT AS LOCUS STANDI
Public Interest Litigation is
intended for the enforcement of the basic and other legal rights of those who
are poor, vulnerable, uninformed of the legal redress system, or otherwise in a
socially or economically disadvantaged position. Such lawsuit may only be filed
for the purpose of redressing a public wrong, enforcing a public obligation, or
defending a public interest. The petition must be filed in good faith in the
public interest and not for personal benefit, private motivation, or any
extraneous factor. There are three fundamental prerequisites for filing a
public interest lawsuit.
Those are:
1. Injury- The plaintiff must have
experienced or imminently suffer damage - a real and particularised violation
of a legally protected interest. The injury must be genuine or imminent,
concrete and perceptible, and not merely hypothetical. This damage might be
both economic and non-economic.
2. Causation: - There must be a
causal relationship between the harm and the conduct complained of, such that
the injury is properly attributable to the challenged activity of the defendant
and not to the independent action of a third person who is not before the
court.
3. Redressability- It must be
probable, as opposed to just hypothetical, that a favourable court judgement
would rectify the wrong. However, there are three important prudential limits
or standing principles developed by the courts. These principles were expanded
based on the situation:
The court considers the following as
locus standi before the court:
Petitions sent by mail that are not
in the public interest may be considered as writ petitions if the honourable
judge designated for this purpose so directs. Individual pleas complaining
harassment or torture or death in jail or by police, complaints of brutality on
women such as harassment for dowry, bride burning, rape, murder, kidnapping,
complaints relating to family pensions and complaints of refusal by police to
register the case may be registered as writ petitions if the concerned Hon'ble
Judge approves. Whenever considered necessary, a report from the appropriate
authorities is requested prior to presenting the case to the Honorable Court
for instructions. If so, as instructed by the Honorable Judge, the letter is
recorded as a writ petition and placed on the Court's hearing schedule. In
recent cases, however, the Supreme Court has substantially loosened this
customary rule:
1) Any individual
In Peoples Union for Democratic
Rights v. Union of India,[13]
the court presently allows Public Interest Litigation or Social Interest
Litigation at the instance of "Public spirited citizens" for the
enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any individual or group of
individuals who are unable to approach court for relief due to their socially
or economically disadvantaged position. Public interest litigation is a component
of the process of participatory justice, and standing in civil action of this
nature must be welcomed with open arms.
In the Judges Transfer Case, [14]the
Court ruled that any member of the public with sufficient interest in a public
damage resulting from a breach of legal rights may initiate a Public Interest
Lawsuit in order to seek judicial remedy. This is essential for upholding the
Rule of Law and advancing the equilibrium between law and justice. A person who
approaches a court of equity in the exercise of its exceptional jurisdiction
must not only have clean hands, but also a clean mind, heart, and goals.
In the Shiram Food & Fertilizer
case[15],
Public Interest Litigation ordered the firm producing toxic and fatal chemicals
and gases that endanger the lives and health of workers to take all essential
safety precautions before reopening the factory.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India[16],
a Public Interest Lawsuit was filed to prevent further contamination of Ganga
water in order to avoid additional water pollution. While the petitioner is not
a riparian owner, the Supreme Court ruled that he has standing to apply for the
execution of legislative restrictions, since he has an interest in preserving
the lives of Ganga water users.
The Supreme Court of India ruled in
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India,[17] a
Public Interest Litigation filed by a human rights activist fighting for the
general public interest, that it is the foremost duty of every member of the
medical profession to provide immediate medical aid to every injured citizen
without waiting for any procedural formalities.
2) Non-profit organisation
Council for Environment Legal Action
vs. Union of India[18],
a Public Interest Lawsuit brought by a recognised non-profit organisation
concerning economic degeneration in coastal areas. The Supreme Court issued the
necessary instructions and directives for the enforcement of environmental
protection regulations.
3) Research article or newspaper
report
According to a story headlined “Treat
Prisoners Equally, HC” published in The Tribe on August 23, the Punjab &
Haryana High Court ruled that there can be no categorization of convicts based
on their social standing, education, or lifestyle. This is a stunning decision
by the Supreme Court, which declared section 576-A of the manual to be “unconstitutional.”
In recent years, Judicial Activism
has introduced a new dimension to the legal system and provided new hope to
millions of people who are destitute. There is no reason why the Indian Supreme
Court should not adopt an aggressive stance similar to that of the United
States Supreme Court in order to expand remedial opportunities for Indian
people.
Supreme Court has suddenly understood
its appropriate function in a welfare state and is utilising its new approach
to produce a whole new body of legislation for the efficient and successful
execution of Public Interest Litigation. By submitting a letter or postcard to
any Judge, a person can easily petition the court for the enforcement of basic
rights. That specific letters founded on actual facts and ideas will be
translated into writ petitions. When a court accepts a Public Interest Lawsuit,
it attempts to uphold the implementation of social and economic programmes for
the benefit of the disadvantaged and the poor. Public Interest Litigation has
benefited the general populace. Many wrongs done by individuals or by society
have been rectified via Public Interest Litigation. By reducing the scope of
Public Interest Litigation, the Court has brought legal assistance to the
doorsteps of millions of impoverished Indians, something that the government
has been unable to accomplish despite spending a great deal of money on new
legal aid systems at the federal and state levels. Commendable is the Supreme
Court's key role in expanding the meaning of Public Interest Litigation as a
counterbalance to the executive's laziness and inefficiency.
Given the above discussion, the
following are the most essential PIL topics:
1) Labor exploitation occurs when
workers are paid less than the minimum wage.
The Indian Express exposes the
situation of Bihar's inmates awaiting trial. These defendants have been
incarcerated for the last decade, in violation of their right to a prompt
trial.
3) Dehumanized Case - The majority of
the time, police brutality harms the victim's health and reputation.
a) Supreme Court directive to offer
medical help to victims of police blindness.
b) Police brutality resulting in a
person's death given for the compositor amount.
4) Eviction of Gudalur farmers -
Individuals who had cultivated the land for many years were sought to be
evicted in violation of the concept of natural justice. The case is sympathetic
and the farmers were furnished with compassionate grounds.
5) Child welfare - Release of
youngsters under the age of 16 and separate treatment of juvenile criminals
awaiting trial.
6) Women Atrocity - There are
increasing incidents of women atrocities in the nation, and the police officer
has access to PIL Guidelines for initiating cases;
a) In instances of gang rape, police
officers are supplied with filing instructions.
b) Custodial violence against women -
Ill treatment and custodial abuse against women in the police jail.
7) Environmental Cases: a) To combat
the problem of water pollution, the Supreme Court in the Ganga River case
mandates the closure of companies whose water pollution harms the Ganga River.
b) In an effort to combat air
pollution, the court orders the closure of limestone quarries in the Mussoorie
Hills range in order to preserve the ecosystem of the Himalayan area and
protect public health.
V. CONCLUSION
Hence, litigation in the public
interest is a form of social litigation that provides remedies for everyone.
Locus standi is a notion that originated in the United States; it refers to
standing before the court or filing the case before the court. This PIL notion
in the context of locus standi is that the entire public or society does not
stand before the court, but rather a social worker or lawyer does so on their
behalf. So, locus standi is a notion that originated from public interest
litigation, that is altering their scope and meaning.
Eventually, people will regard it to
be PIL based on media reports, such as those in the Hussainara Khatoon case,
the research of a jurist or student, and other factors that the honourable
court deems to be the source of public interest. Hence, the court is addressing
the issue through public interest litigation, which is the footing before the
court. The liberalisation of the locus standi principle enables the court to
regard a litigant’s broad interest in an issue as adequate for locus standi.
So, the notion of individual interest evolved into the concept of special
interest, then into the concept of class interest, and finally into the concept
of adequate interest.
In such circumstances, no particular
individual is required to appear before the court in order to bring a lawsuit;
instead, the court evaluates the locus standi based on media articles and deems
the issue to be one of public interest.
The expansive interpretation of locus
standi, which allows anybody to petition the court on behalf of persons who are
economically or physically unable to appear, has been beneficial. In several
instances, judges have begun suo moto actions based on newspaper stories or
received correspondence. In spite of the fact that social and economic rights
outlined in Part IV of the Indian Constitution are not enforceable at law,
courts have creatively interpreted them as basic rights, making them judicially
enforceable.
Public Interest Litigation is a
significant agent of social transformation. It works for the benefit of all
segments of society. It is the universal sword used just for executing justice.
The development of this legal tool proved advantageous for emerging nations
like India. PIL has been utilised to confront the prevalent evils in society.
It is an institutional endeavour for the wellbeing of the society's
disadvantaged segment. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[19],
the Supreme Court of India ordered the liberation of indentured labourers. In
Murli S. Dogra v. Union of India[20],
the Supreme Court of India outlawed public smoking. In a historic decision,
Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India, [21]the
Supreme Court of India provided rules for the rehabilitation and compensation
of working women who have been raped. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[22],
the Supreme Court established comprehensive standards for avoiding sexual
harassment of professional women in the workplace.
For example, Article 21's right to
life has been broadened to include the right to free legal help, the right to
live with dignity, the right to education, the right to work, freedom from
torture, barfetters, and handcuffs in jails, etc. Compassionate judges have
consistently innovated on behalf of the disadvantaged. In the 1983 Bandhua
Mukti Morcha case, for instance, the Supreme Court placed the burden of
evidence on the respondent, indicating that it would regard every incidence of
forced labour as bonded labour until the employer could prove otherwise.
Similarly, in the Asiad employees case, Judge P.N. Bhagwati ruled that anyone
earning less than the basic income may immediately approach the Supreme Court,
bypassing the employment commissioner and lower courts.
In PIL instances in which the
petitioner is unable to produce all the requisite evidence, either because it
is too extensive or because the parties are socially or economically
disadvantaged, courts have created commissions to gather information on the facts
and present it to the bench.
Thus, it is essential to note that
the idea of Public Interest Litigation has expanded due to the relaxation of
the locus standi doctrine.
It would be good to end by stating Cunningham,
who compared Indian PIL to a Phoenix: a brand-new creativity blooming from the
ashes of the previous order.
[1] Order 1 Rule 8, 8A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
[2] Article 32, the Constitution of
India.
[4] AIR 1982 SC 1473.
[5] Baxi, Upendra (1985) “Taking
Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India,” Third
World Legal Studies: Vol. 4, Article 6. Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/twls/vol4/iss1/6
[6] Mohd Haris Usmani, Public Interest
Litigation, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l273-Public-Interest-Litigation.html.
[10] Appeal (Civil) 2148 of 1994.
[11] Article 359, the Constitution of
India.
[12] Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order
7 Rule 11.
[15] AIR 1987
SC 965.
[16] AIR
(1987) 4 SCC 463.
[19] 1984 AIR 802.
[20] (2001) 8 SCC 765.
[21] 1995 SCC (1) 14.