Q.34 Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary? GS-II: POLITY (UPSC CSE 2024) (250 WORDS/15 MARKS)

Answer:

THE INTRODUCTION:

Indian Constitution, particularly Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), provided a framework for regulating relations between the state and its citizens. In Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976), Justice Krishna Iyer laid the foundational concept of the public interest litigation (PIL) in India. He advocated for a judiciary that goes beyond mere legalism to uphold social justice and constitutional morality.

THE BODY:

• • In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), Justice P.N. Bhagwati expanded its scope by allowing any public-spirited person or organization to file a PIL on behalf of those who could not approach the This shift democratized access to justice by enabling the courts to address grievances of disadvantaged groups.
  • Supreme Court has collaborative rather than adversarial approach in PIL cases. It has Shifted the burden of proof to respondents in cases involving marginalized groups. It has led to the development of “continuing mandamus” to monitor implementation of court orders.
  • It has integrated directive principles and international law norms into fundamental rights. It led to the development of new interpretative techniques to expand rights while maintaining constitutional principles.

LANDMARK PIL CASES THAT HAVE SHAPED INDIA’S LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Rights of Marginalized Groups

• • Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): First major PIL case that led to the release of 40,000 undertrial prisoners and established right to speedy trial.
  • Bandhua Mukti Morcha Union of India (1984): Addressed bonded labour issues and led to rehabilitation guidelines.

Women’s Rights

• • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Landmark case that established workplace sexual harassment guidelines and protections for women.

Environmental Protection

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986): Multiple cases addressing environmental issues including:

• • Oleum gas leak case establishing absolute liability principle.
  • Ganga pollution case leading to industrial regulations.

Prison Reforms

• • Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983): Improved conditions and rights of women prisoners.

MULTIFACTED REASONS FOR GROWTH OF PILs in INDIA

• • JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: The Indian judiciary adopted an activist stance to address social injustices and governmental inaction, often stepping beyond traditional adjudication into areas of policymaking and governance. Article 32 empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, which the Court has used proactively.
  • EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: In Maneka Gandhi Union of India (1978), the Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence but includes the right to live with human dignity. This expansive interpretation has allowed PILs to address issues like environmental protection, education, and health as Fundamental Rights.
  • PROGRESSIVE INTERPRETATION OF DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES: Although non-justiciable, Directive Principles of State Policy have been used to inform the interpretation of Fundamental Rights. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) recognized the right to education as implicit in Article 21, influenced by Directive Principles.
  • SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES AND MARGINALIZATION: Widespread poverty, illiteracy, and social stratification have limited access to justice for many citizens. PILs have become a means to address grievances of those who are otherwise voiceless in the legal system. According to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), millions of people have benefitted from legal aid services facilitated through PILs.
  • FAILURE OF EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES: Inefficiencies, corruption, and inaction within the executive and legislative branches have compelled citizens to seek redress through the judiciary. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), known as the Jain Hawala case, led to significant reforms in India’s corruption investigation agencies. Former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma remarked that judicial intervention becomes necessary when other branches fail to uphold constitutional mandates.
  • INFLUENCE OF MEDIA AND CIVIL SOCIETY: An investigative media and vibrant civil society have brought attention to various social issues, leading to increased PILs. Media reports and NGO activism have often prompted suo motto judicial intervention in matters of public interest.

GLOBAL COMPARISONS

• • United States: The U.S. Supreme Court exercises judicial review powers, established through Marbury v. Madison (1803). It adheres strictly to the doctrine of separation of powers and is less likely to engage in policymaking or intervene in administrative matters. It focuses more on constitutional interpretation rather than direct policy intervention.
  • United Kingdom: Courts cannot overturn primary legislation passed by Parliament but can review administrative actions for legality, rationality, and procedural UK courts show greater deference to legislative and executive branches compared to India’s proactive judiciary.

THE CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of constitutional provisions and proactive stance have significantly enhanced its role. It has been trying to address the issues that often lie at the intersection of law, policy, and morality. However, this power is not without challenges. Concerns about judicial overreach, implementation of judgments, and maintaining the delicate balance between the branches of government persist side by side. Courts like those in the United States also wield significant power but operate under different constraints and traditions.