Public Interest Litigation In Criminal Law
What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Public Interest Litigation is a legal mechanism that allows individuals or groups to file petitions in court on behalf of the public interest, especially for those who are unable to approach the court themselves. In criminal law, PIL is often used to address issues that affect a larger segment of society, such as human rights violations, custodial deaths, police reforms, illegal detention, and systemic failures in criminal justice.
Purpose of PIL in Criminal Law
To protect and enforce the rights of marginalized and vulnerable sections.
To ensure accountability and transparency in the criminal justice system.
To prompt judicial intervention in cases where the state machinery fails.
To bring systemic reforms in policing, prison administration, and victim protection.
To prevent abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
Characteristics of PIL in Criminal Law
It is not filed for personal gain but for public good.
The petitioner need not have a personal stake in the case.
Courts take a proactive role in monitoring and directing implementation.
It often leads to policy changes, reforms, and enforcement of fundamental rights.
Important Case Laws on Public Interest Litigation in Criminal Law
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
Facts: Hundreds of undertrial prisoners in Bihar were languishing in jail for periods longer than the maximum sentence they would have received if convicted.
Issue: Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) due to prolonged detention without trial.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 and ordered the release of undertrials who had been in jail beyond the prescribed period.
Significance: This landmark PIL brought focus on the plight of undertrial prisoners and initiated reforms for speedy justice in criminal law.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts: The case arose out of custodial deaths and police atrocities in West Bengal.
Issue: Protection against police excesses and custodial violence.
Held: The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths, including mandatory police station records, medical examination, informing relatives, and legal aid.
Significance: The PIL ensured protection of human rights in police custody and mandated police reforms nationwide.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
Facts: The case dealt with police encounters and extrajudicial killings, specifically “fake encounters.”
Issue: Whether the police have the power to execute suspected criminals without trial.
Held: The Court held that encounter killings are illegal and violate Article 21. It directed strict investigation of such incidents and compensation to victims' families.
Significance: The case strengthened safeguards against misuse of police power and emphasized judicial oversight.
4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
Facts: The petition addressed bonded laborers, a criminal violation under labor laws.
Issue: Protection of bonded laborers and enforcement of laws against forced labor.
Held: The Court held bonded labor a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and ordered the government to release and rehabilitate bonded laborers.
Significance: This PIL extended criminal law protections to vulnerable laborers and catalyzed anti-bonded labor enforcement.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 1
Facts: The PIL was filed seeking police reforms across India, addressing issues like political interference, lack of accountability, and abuse of power.
Issue: Ensuring an accountable, efficient, and fair police force.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for police reforms, including the establishment of State Security Commissions, fixed tenures for officers, and better grievance redressal.
Significance: The case is pivotal in criminal law as it reformed police governance, improving justice delivery and reducing human rights violations.
Summary
PILs in criminal law act as powerful tools to address systemic failures, police brutality, and rights violations.
The judiciary plays a proactive role in enforcing constitutional protections through PIL.
These cases have brought landmark changes in speeding up trials, preventing custodial violence, abolishing bonded labor, and police reforms.
PILs ensure access to justice for marginalized groups and uphold the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments