Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Judicial Review in India

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Public Interest Litigation is a judicially developed mechanism through which constitutional courts may be approached in matters involving public injury, public duties, protection of disadvantaged persons or questions affecting the public at large. It expanded traditional rules of locus standi so that, in appropriate cases, a public-spirited person or organisation may seek relief for persons who cannot effectively approach the Court themselves.

The development of PIL in India is particularly associated with the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence from the late 1970s and 1980s. Justices V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N. Bhagwati played important roles in expanding access to justice.

Hussainara Khatoon and the Right to Speedy Trial

The Hussainara Khatoon series of cases concerning undertrial prisoners in Bihar became a landmark in Indian public-interest litigation. Advocate Kapila Hingorani brought the plight of undertrial prisoners before the Supreme Court. The Court recognised the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and emphasised access to legal aid and fair procedure.

How PIL Differs from Ordinary Litigation

• Traditional standing rules may be relaxed where affected persons are poor, disadvantaged, detained or otherwise unable to approach the Court.
• The object must be enforcement of a genuine public interest, not a private dispute disguised as PIL.
• The Supreme Court has recognised that petitions, and historically even letters or other communications in appropriate cases, may invoke its public-interest jurisdiction.
• Courts may reject frivolous, publicity-oriented, politically motivated or personal-interest litigation presented as PIL.

Constitutional Basis of PIL

PIL is not defined in a single constitutional article. It operates principally through the writ jurisdiction of the constitutional courts.

Article 32 - Supreme Court

Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court may issue directions, orders or writs, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari.

Article 226 - High Courts

High Courts may issue writs not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also "for any other purpose". Article 226 is therefore textually wider in the range of rights and legal duties that may be enforced, although its exercise remains discretionary and subject to constitutional principles.

Article 227 - Superintendence

Article 227 gives every High Court superintendence over courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, subject to the constitutional exceptions.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine legislative and executive action for conformity with the Constitution and to grant appropriate relief where constitutional limits have been transgressed.

• It preserves the supremacy of the Constitution.
• It enables courts to test laws and executive actions against Fundamental Rights, legislative competence and other constitutional limitations.
• The Supreme Court and High Courts exercise judicial review through several constitutional provisions, especially Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142, 226 and 227, along with provisions governing constitutional and appellate jurisdiction.

Article 13

Article 13 declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency, subject to the constitutional scheme.

Supreme Court Provisions Relevant to Judicial Review

High Court Judicial Review

High Courts exercise constitutional review principally through Articles 226 and 227. A High Court may review legislation and executive action falling within its territorial and constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, as the apex constitutional court, exercises jurisdiction across India in accordance with the Constitution.

Ninth Schedule and Judicial Review

The Ninth Schedule was introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 together with Article 31B. Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule receive the protection contemplated by Article 31B, but that protection is not an absolute exclusion of judicial review.

Under the Supreme Court's basic-structure jurisprudence, including I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, constitutional amendments inserting laws into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 may be tested where the protected law damages or destroys the basic structure through its impact on Fundamental Rights forming part of that structure.

Judicial Review and Basic Structure

The Supreme Court has treated judicial review as an essential feature of the constitutional scheme and part of the Constitution's basic structure. Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is therefore itself subject to the basic-structure limitation.

For examination purposes, connect judicial review with constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, Fundamental Rights, Articles 32 and 226, and the basic-structure doctrine.

Quick Revision