Judicial activism is increasingly becoming a significant aspect of the contemporary legal landscape. Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), citizens are now more empowered to seek justice. Recently, the judiciary has found itself at the center of debate due to a notable increase in judicial intervention. The scope of this intervention has been progressively broadening, particularly through the mechanism of public interest litigation. The judiciary has moved away from a pro-status-quo stance, embracing the responsibility to uphold the fundamental rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations through innovative interpretations and proactive measures. Justice Krishna Iyer aptly noted that judicial activism aims to address areas where the government has either failed or shown indifference. The Supreme Court has pioneered new approaches to delivering justice to the public via public interest litigation. Former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who played a pivotal role in expanding the reach of PIL, remarked that the Supreme Court has established new commitments, promoted participatory justice, and set fair procedural standards, thereby enhancing access to justice for citizens.
Judicial activism involves the judiciary’s engagement in legislative and executive matters, often arising from the inaction of other government branches. It serves as a mechanism for providing relief to disadvantaged and aggrieved individuals, positioning the judiciary as a key player in policy formulation alongside the legislature and executive.
Essentially, judicial activism entails making decisions that resonate with the current societal context. In essence, it signifies a shift from judicial restraint to a more proactive role for the Supreme Court and lower courts, compelling authorities to take action and, at times, directing government policies and administrative matters. An examination of the factors contributing to judicial activism reveals its relevance in today’s society.
Introduction
The concept of Public Interest Litigation is composed of three key terms: ‘public,’ ‘interest,’ and ‘litigation.’ The term ‘public’ refers to the collective body of individuals, encompassing the general populace, the community, all citizens of a state, and the residents of a specific area. It signifies society as a whole. The term ‘interest’ pertains to legal concerns, rights, or financial stakes that an individual may have in a matter, which can be pursued through judicial means. ‘Litigation’ denotes a legal dispute or contest within a court, aimed at enforcing a right or conducting legal proceedings.
Public Interest refers to matters that affect the welfare and rights of the community at large or specific segments of it. It encompasses issues that engage the public’s concern. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘public interest’ is defined as a situation where the community has a financial stake or an interest that impacts their legal rights or obligations. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary further clarifies that a matter of public interest is not merely something that satisfies curiosity or provides entertainment; rather, it involves issues that affect the legal rights or liabilities of a particular class within the community.
In the United States, the term ‘Public Interest Law’ is commonly used. The Council for Public Interest Law, established by the Ford Foundation, describes ‘Public Interest Law’ as efforts aimed at providing legal representation to groups and interests that have historically been underrepresented. These initiatives are undertaken in recognition of the need for equitable legal advocacy.
The purpose of public interest litigation is to offer a meaningful remedy for the disadvantaged, Arti vulnerable, and uneducated individuals to assert their rights and interests. The Indian Constitution serves not only as a legal framework but also as a social contract that reflects the hopes and aspirations of India’s vast population. It enshrines Fundamental Rights in Part III, which aim to ensure not just security and equality, but also justice and fairness for all citizens. Article 14 of the constitution provides for equality before law or equall protection of law . The effectiveness of Fundamental Rights in India is reinforced by Article 32. Dr. Ambedkar referred to this article as “the very soul and heart of the Constitution,” emphasizing its role in providing effective remedies against violations of Fundamental Rights; without it, the Constitution would lack substance. The assurance of equality and justice, including the right to life, would be rendered meaningless if they could not be enforced by the poor, illiterate, or marginalized individuals. Consequently, the Supreme Court has permitted organizations to file writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 to address collective grievances.
The Directive Principles of State Policy outline the objectives that the State (Government) should strive to achieve for its citizens, while the Fundamental Rights offer the means to realize these objectives. The concept of a welfare state, as envisioned in our Constitution, can only be fulfilled if the State actively works to implement the Directive Principles with a strong sense of ethics. Article 38 of the Constitution emphasizes the State’s commitment to enhancing the well-being of its citizens by creating and maintaining a social framework in which justice—social, economic, and political—pervades all aspects of national existence.
Background
The nature of pil has evolved from time to time. The nature of pil was fabricated from the case of People Union of democratic rights vs Union of India[1]
Public Interest Litigation functions as a vital element of the legal aid initiative, designed to ensure that justice is attainable for marginalized groups within society, who are frequently neglected in the wider human context. This type of litigation is markedly distinct from traditional adversarial litigation, which generally centers around a conflict between two parties—one party making claims and seeking redress, while the other party disputes those claims or opposes the sought relief. Public interest litigation is presented to the Court not to assert the rights of one individual against another, as is typical in conventional litigation. Instead, its purpose is to advance and uphold the public interest, which necessitates that violations of constitutional or legal rights affecting large groups of individuals who are impoverished, uninformed, or socially and economically marginalized should not be overlooked or unaddressed. Failing to address these violations would undermine the rule of law, a fundamental component of public interest in any democratic government. The rule of law signifies that legal protections should not be reserved solely for a privileged few, nor should the law be manipulated by vested interests to maintain the status quo under the pretense of safeguarding their civil and political rights. The responsibility of reforming the social and economic framework to ensure that social and economic rights are genuinely realized for the impoverished and marginalized groups lies primarily with the legislature and the executive. However, the mere launch of social and economic assistance programs by these bodies is insufficient. Effective implementation requires a multifaceted approach that includes public interest litigation alongside these rescue initiatives.
Public Interest Litigation, as we understand it, represents a collaborative endeavor involving the petitioner, the State or Public Authority, and the Court, aimed at upholding the constitutional and legal rights, benefits, and privileges afforded to vulnerable populations, thereby facilitating social justice. The State or public authority that is the subject of public interest litigation should share a vested interest in safeguarding the fundamental human rights—both constitutional and legal—of those who are socially and economically disadvantaged, just as the petitioner does. Furthermore, the State or Public Authority, when responding to public interest litigation, should embrace this process, as it presents an opportunity to rectify injustices and address wrongs inflicted upon the poor and weaker segments of society, whose welfare must remain a primary concern for the State or Public Authority.
Change of position of locus standi
The established tradition dictates that a petition may only be submitted by an individual whose fundamental rights have been violated. The requested remedy must be directly related to one of the fundamental rights that the petitioner seeks to uphold. Furthermore, the remedy should be pursued through the appropriate legal channels. This principle is known as the rule of “Locus Standi.” However, due to factors such as poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, and social and economic disadvantages, many individuals are unable to assert their rights and are often unaware of their fundamental rights, which hinders their ability to seek judicial relief. The Constitution of India, however, underscores the importance of equal justice for all individuals. Justice Bhagwati, in his article titled “Social Action Litigation: The Indian Experience,” asserts that the judiciary must assume a crucial and significant role not only in averting and addressing misuse of power but also in eradicating exploitation and injustice. To fulfill this responsibility, it is essential to implement procedural innovations that can effectively address the challenges associated with an active and dedicated judiciary. The Supreme Court has redefined its stance on locus standi, moving away from the conventional requirement of demonstrating personal interest or injury to embrace the concept of “Citizen Standing.” It has articulated three essential principles: An individual or a particular group suffers a legal wrong or injury as a result of the violation of any constitutional or legal right; The individual or group affected, due to circumstances such as poverty, vulnerability, disability, or a disadvantaged social or economic position, is unable to pursue legal recourse in the Court; and The citizen who approaches the Court under these conditions does so in good faith, devoid of any personal interests, political motives, or other hidden agendas.
Major reforms in different areas
Health
Its Own Motion vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1998)[2]
The case pertains to a significant ruling regarding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and judicial activism within India. In this instance, the Supreme Court of India initiated suo motu (on its own motion) proceedings concerning the state of public streets in Delhi, with particular emphasis on garbage collection, sanitation, and the Municipal Corporation’s inadequacies in maintaining cleanliness. This case underscored the judiciary’s responsibility in tackling public welfare issues and the promotion of fundamental rights via PIL. In 1995, the Supreme Court affirmed that health constitutes a fundamental right for all individuals. Consequently, medical professionals were subjected to Consumer Law. In 1996, it was determined that hospitals and doctors could face penalties for refusing to admit critically ill patients.
During the dengue outbreak in Delhi in 1996, the Delhi High Court expressed its discontent with the conditions in government hospitals. It mandated that both the central and Delhi governments enhance the availability of beds and medical personnel in the emergency wards of their hospitals. The Delhi High Court also issued a suo motu notice to the Delhi government, requiring an explanation of its measures to address the dengue crisis. Additionally, the court instructed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to impose penalties on private property owners where stagnant water, a breeding ground for dengue mosquitoes, was discovered.
Working conditions
Bandhua Mukti Morcha case[3]
Bandhua Mukti Morcha (Bonded Labour Liberation Front), sent a letter to a judge of the Supreme Court, requesting the release of bonded labourers, many of whom were migrants, from two stone quarries situated in the Faridabad district. A significant number of these individuals were bonded labourers who had not consented to such employment, leading to their work under extremely poor conditionsThe petitioner also included the thumbprints of the bonded labourers with the letter. Upon recognizing the potential legitimacy of the claims, the Supreme Court accepted the case as a writ petition, notified the relevant stone quarries, and appointed two advocates as Commissioners to investigate the matter.The Commissioners conducted visits to the quarries and interviewed each individual referenced in the letter to evaluate their working conditions and the voluntariness of their employment. After completing their investigation, the Commission submitted a report that validated the allegations presented in the letter. The Court then distributed copies of the report to all respondent mine lessees and stone crushers, providing them with an opportunity to respond. Additionally, it was ordered that the labourers identified in the report and writ petition were free to move as they wished. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case was adjudicated on December 16, 1983. The bench presiding over the case consisted of Justice A.N. Sen, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, and Justice R.S. Pathak. To ensure adherence to Section 13 of the Bonded Labour Act of 1976, the Haryana government is mandated to establish vigilance committees in each district division within six weeks following the judgement. Furthermore, to identify instances of bonded labour as stipulated by the law, the Haryana government will appoint a district magistrate. The state government is also required to collaborate with non-governmental organizations and other volunteer agencies to ensure the effective implementation of the Bonded Labour Act of 1976. Additionally, the Haryana government must provide housing for the bonded labourers within three months of the ruling. The enforcement of the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 necessitates cooperation between the federal and state governments.
EDUCATION
Avinash Mehrotra v Union of India[4]
This incident originated from a fire that broke out in a middle school located in Madras. The institution, characterized by a single thatched roof and lacking windows, featured only one entrance and exit, and was a private establishment reportedly established due to significant reductions in government funding for education. The fire ignited in a nearby makeshift kitchen where staff were preparing lunch, resulting in the tragic loss of 93 children and numerous injuries to others.In response, an immediate writ petition was submitted under Public Interest Litigation aimed at safeguarding schoolchildren from similar future incidents and enhancing the overall conditions of educational institutions. The Court ruled that there exists a fundamental right to receive an education free from concerns regarding security and safety. It determined that the right to education encompasses the necessity for safe school environments, as outlined in Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution. Regardless of the type of school a family chooses for their children, whether public or private, the State is obligated to ensure that children are not subjected to harm while exercising their fundamental right to education.State Governments and Union Territories were instructed to guarantee that schools comply with essential safety standards, ensuring that school facilities are secure and meet the safety criteria established by the National Building Code. Additionally, authorities were mandated to submit affidavits confirming compliance.In his interpretation of the right to education, Justice Dalveer Bhandari articulated that educating a child necessitates more than just a teacher and a blackboard, or a classroom and a textbook. He emphasized that the right to education demands that children learn in a quality school, which must not pose any risk to their safety.
ENVIRONMENT
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India’(1986)[5]
The Supreme Court has accepted the case concerning the chlorine gas leak from the Shriram Food and Fertilizers Manufacturing Plant, which resulted in one fatality and significant distress for both workers and local residents. This incident was attributed to the management’s negligence in the maintenance and operation of the company’s caustic chlorine facility. The issue was presented to the Court via a public interest litigation.In its ruling, the Supreme Court mandated that the company, which produces hazardous and toxic chemicals and gases that threaten the health and safety of workers and nearby residents, implement all necessary safety protocols prior to the plant’s reopening. The Court instructed the management to deposit a sum of twenty lakhs of rupees with the Registrar of the Court as security for potential compensation claims from the victims of the oleum gas leak. Furthermore, the management is required to provide a bank guarantee of fifteen lakhs of rupees, which may be utilized for compensation related to any future leakages. Under these stipulations, the Court permitted the plant to operate partially. It was determined that compensation should be commensurate with the financial capacity of the responsible company, and that the directors and officers accountable for the leak would be liable for damages.
Child Labour
M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others 1996[6]
Although there are many laws in place that ban the use of child labor, this issue persists. In December 1996, the Supreme Court, acting on a Public Interest Litigation, mandated the establishment of a Child Labour Rehabilitation Worker Fund. This fund requires employers who utilize child laborers to provide compensation of Rs. 20,000 for each child worker and proposed various strategies for the gradual rehabilitation of these children involved in labor.
So from the above cases , it is evident that the judiciary has engaged in intervention across nearly all sectors. Numerous instances of judicial activism illustrate the extensive scope within which the judiciary has instructed the government to take action and has mandated that authorities fulfill their obligations. Through judicial activism, the courts are upholding and safeguarding the essence of the Constitution as a protector of citizens’ rights.
Conclusion
Public interest litigation refers to a legal action initiated in a court to safeguard the interests of the public, addressing issues such as environmental pollution, terrorism, and road safety, among others. In India, judicial activism has gained significance as a result of public interest litigation. Although it is not explicitly defined in any legislation, judges have interpreted it to reflect the broader intentions of the public. The court must ensure that the individual filing the public interest litigation possesses a genuine interest in the issue at hand. The judiciary has faced criticism for its perceived overreach and excessive actions under the guise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and judicial activism. The widespread acceptance of judicial activism has validated its role within the legal framework. In numerous instances, the judiciary has performed appropriately, upholding both the law and the Constitution. This indicates that, ultimately, the enforcement and implementation of court rulings must be carried out by the administration operating under the political executive.
[1] People’S Union For Democratic Rights vs.Union Of India & Others, 1983 SCR (1) 456, 1982 SCC (3) 235, or 1982 SCALE (1) 818.
[2] Court On Its Own Motion vs. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, 1998VAD(DELHI)872, 75(1998)DLT327, ILR1998DELHI637.
[3] Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union Of India & Others, 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 802, 1984 LAB. I. C. 560, 1984 SCC (L&S) 389, (1984) 2 LAB LN 60, 1984 (3) SCC 161.
[4] Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union Of India & Ors, 6 SCC 398 (2009).
[5] M.C. Mehta And Anr vs. Union Of India & Ors , 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819, AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1086, 1987 (1) SCC 395, 1987 SCC (L&S) 37, (1987) 1 TAC 255, (1987) ACJ 386, (1987) 1 ACC 157, (1987) 1 JT 1 (SC).
[6] M.C. Mehta vs. State Of Tamil Nadu And Others , AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 699, 1996 (6) SCC 756, 1997 AIR SCW 407, 1997 LAB. I. C. 563, 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 243, (1997) 1 JT 286 (SC), (1997) 29 ALL LR 440, 1997 (1) SCC 733, 1997 LAB LR 97, 1997 UJ(SC) 1 243, (1997) 3 GUJ LR 2306, (1998) 1 KANT LJ 582, (1997) 2 LABLJ 724, (1997) 1 LAB LN 12, (1997) 1 CURLR 198, (1997) 2 BLJ 155, (1997) 1 SUPREME 207, 1997 SCC (L&S) 49.
Author: Durga Sriram Sai Siddhartha
Juris Centre 