Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and expansion of locus standi
🔹 What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism developed by Indian courts that allows any individual or group to file a case in the interest of the public, particularly for the enforcement of fundamental rights of those who are unable to approach the court themselves.
PIL is not defined in any statute or in the Constitution of India, but it is a judicial innovation aimed at democratizing access to justice.
🔹 Locus Standi – Traditional vs Expanded
Traditional Locus Standi: Only the aggrieved person (i.e., one whose rights are directly affected) had the right to approach the courts.
Expanded Locus Standi under PIL: Any public-spirited individual or organization can approach the courts on behalf of those whose rights are violated but are unable to do so due to poverty, illiteracy, disability, or other disadvantages.
This shift from “personally aggrieved” to “publicly concerned” has been a significant development in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
🔹 Constitutional Provisions Involved
Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies (Supreme Court)
Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
🔹 Leading Case Laws Explaining PIL and Expansion of Locus Standi
Let’s look at five landmark judgments that shaped PIL jurisprudence and expanded locus standi:
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1369
Facts:
A newspaper article revealed that thousands of undertrial prisoners were languishing in Bihar jails for years without trial.
A lawyer, Kapila Hingorani, filed a PIL on their behalf.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is a part of Article 21 – Right to Life.
The Court released thousands of undertrial prisoners.
Locus standi was expanded to allow a third party to move the court for the protection of constitutional rights of marginalized people.
Significance:
First major PIL in India.
Opened the doors of courts to the poor and indigent.
Set precedent for public-spirited individuals to file cases for the benefit of others.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149 (also known as the Judges’ Transfer Case)
Facts:
Related to appointment and transfer of judges.
Multiple advocates raised questions on the independence of the judiciary.
Judgment (by Justice P.N. Bhagwati):
Recognized the right of individuals and groups to approach the court in public interest, even if they are not directly affected.
Defined public interest litigation for the first time.
Observed that "where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or a determinate class of persons who are unable to approach the court, any member of the public can approach the court on their behalf."
Significance:
This case formally recognized the concept of PIL in Indian jurisprudence.
Locus standi was broadly expanded, allowing PIL to be used as a tool for justice for all.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
Citation: AIR 1984 SC 802
Facts:
A PIL was filed by Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an NGO, against the use of bonded laborers in Haryana stone quarries.
These laborers were being held in inhuman conditions.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the bonded labor system violated Article 21 and various labor laws.
Directed government authorities to take corrective measures, rehabilitate laborers, and enforce laws strictly.
Significance:
Affirmed that NGOs and public-spirited individuals can move courts on behalf of oppressed groups.
Emphasized right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Expanded justiciability of socio-economic rights.
4. People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India (1982)
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 1473
Facts:
PUDR filed a PIL regarding exploitative working conditions of laborers employed in the construction of Asian Games infrastructure in Delhi.
Workers were denied minimum wages and basic facilities.
Judgment:
The Court held that non-payment of minimum wages is forced labor under Article 23 (prohibition of forced labor).
Directed the authorities to ensure compliance with labor laws.
Significance:
Reinforced that minimum wage is a fundamental right.
Showed how PIL could be used for labor welfare.
Recognized PIL as a tool to uphold the rights of unorganized workers.
5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
Facts:
PIL filed by women's organizations after the brutal gang rape of a social worker (Bhanwari Devi) in Rajasthan.
At that time, there was no specific law on sexual harassment at the workplace.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down “Vishaka Guidelines” to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces.
Guidelines were to be treated as law under Article 141 (law declared by the SC is binding).
Recognized international conventions like CEDAW as enforceable in absence of specific domestic legislation.
Significance:
One of the most influential PIL cases on gender justice.
Demonstrated how judiciary could fill legislative gaps through PIL.
Empowered NGOs and collectives to seek gender-sensitive reforms.
🔹 Additional Noteworthy Cases (Brief Mention)
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) – Rights of children in jail; court recognized mental health and legal aid needs of juveniles.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986 onwards) – Series of PILs related to environmental protection, including Ganga pollution, vehicular pollution, and industrial disasters (like Oleum gas leak).
Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) – PIL for passive euthanasia and right to die with dignity.
🔹 Conclusion
PIL and expansion of locus standi have revolutionized access to justice in India. It has made the judiciary more accessible to the poor, marginalized, and voiceless. However, the courts have also warned against the misuse of PIL for personal or political motives and emphasized that PIL should be filed in public interest, not for publicity or profit.
RELATED Blog
0 comments