IASbaba's Flagship Course: Integrated Learning Programme (ILP) - 2024 Read Details
TOPIC: General Studies 2
- Separation of powers between various organs , dispute redressal mechanisms and institution
- Structure, organization and functioning of Executive and Judiciary.
In News: The Supreme Court of India on 10 September stated that Public Interest litigation are there for people who cannot afford to approach the courts.
PIL:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.
Justice Bhagwati, in holding that social and economic conditions necessitate this model of standing, stated:
“When a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused by violation of a fundamental right is unable to approach the Court for judicial redress on account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, any member of the public acting bona fide can move the Court for relief under Article 32 ... so that the fundamental rights may become meaningful not only for the rich and the well-to do who have the means to approach the Court but also for the large masses of people who are living a life of want and destitution and who are by reasons of lack of awareness, assertiveness and resources unable to seek judicial redress.”
Public Interest Litigation in India
During the 1970s, a majority of Indians suffered from a severe lack of access to justice –
DC Wadhwa vs State of Bihar AIR (1986), Supreme Court held that a petitioner, a professor of political science who had done substantial research and deeply interested in ensuring proper implementation of the constitutional provisions, challenged the practice followed by the state of Bihar in re-promulgating a number of ordinances without getting the approval of the legislature. The court held that the petitioner as a member of public has ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a petition under Article 32.
In the case of MC Mehta vs Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 471: 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.
Shreya Singhal vs Union of India - The Landmark Sec. 66A Case: In quashing Section 66A, in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has not only given afresh lease of life to free speech in India, but has also performed its role as a constitutional court for Indians.
Note:
Amicus Curiae: Means “friend of the court”; used to assist in formulating a viewpoint and to make inquiries and reports in the PIL’s.
Connecting the Dots: