Blog Details

Author - Associate Runa Jasia

Public Interest Litigation is directly filed by an individual or group of people in the Supreme Court of India and High Courts of India and judicial member. The person who is filing the petition must not have any personal interest in the litigation, this petition is accepted by the court only if there is interest of large public involved. Generally, this petition is filed by a public-spirited person or organization, if it was felt that certain interests are undermined by the government; In such a situation, the court directly accepts the public interest litigation.

There are several PIL (Public Interest Litigation) cases in the history of India which are considered to be very important:

1. National Legal Services Authority(NLSA) v. Union of India

Petitioner was the NLSA (main petitioner) in this case. Other petitioners was  Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur and Laxmi Narayan Tripathy. The defendant was the Union of India. The case was heard before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, composed of two Justice  K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri. Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan served as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court whereas Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri served as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On April 15, 2014, this decision took place. The Supreme Court of India declared transgender people as a "Third Gender." It affirmed that the same fundamental rights and equality would be provided to transgender people under the Constitution of India. Gender equality in India reformed in a significant way. The transgender community faces a lot of disrespect and disgrace in Indian society. This PIL provided them equality in many levels of the Indian Society. Now they can fight for themselves if they feel that they are discriminated in any way. Constitution of India proved that India believed in giving equal rights to everybody whether it is a male or a female or a transgender. The most important thing is that they are the citizens of India.

2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. In the year 2015, a judgment was passed by the Supreme Court of India on the matter of freedom of speech in India. As mentioned in the section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner was Shreya Singhal, and respondent was the Union of India. 

 Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, as stated in the act:

 Any person who sends, utilizing a computer resource or a communication device,-

a) Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

b) Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

c) Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

3. Citizens for Democracy vs. the State Of Assam

On May 1, 1995, the Supreme Court of India passed this PIL. Petitioner was citizens for democracy; the respondent was the state of Assam. Bench: Kuldip Singh & n. Venkatachala. Stated in the official website: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kuldip Singh. "We clearly declare - and it shall be obeyed from the Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons to the escort constable and the jailwarder - that the rule, regarding a prisoner in transit between prison house and courthouse, is freedom from handcuffs and the exception, under conditions of judicial supervision we have indicated earlier, will be restraints with irons, to be justified before or after. We mandate the judicial officer before whom the prisoner is produced to interrogate the prisoner, as a rule, whether he has been subjected to handcuffs or other "irons" treatment and, if he has been, the official concerned shall be asked to explain the action forthwith in the light of this judgment."

4. Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar

This petition was filed on March 9, 1979, by Hussainara Khatoon and respondent was the State of Bihar or the Home Secretary. Bench: Bhagwati, p.n.

Desai, d.a. It was affirmed by the Supreme Court of India. Keeping a large number of people behind bars trail very long, maybe for years is not considered as reasonable or fair. Poor people are not able to afford money for bail. So this judgment provides a real solution to this problem. 

5. Indian Council for environment legal action v Union of India

On February 13, 1996, this PIL was passed by the Supreme Court of India. Petitioner was the Indian Council for the environment and the respondent was the Union of India. 

An organization brought this very serious matter to light in the country. The way people who work in industrial areas or plants in India get affected is a matter of concern. Their life has become miserable to a certain extent. It is very dangerous to work in a chemical industrial plant. In Udaipur, there was a village Bichhri whose conditions changed drastically after the setup of Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited. The objective of profit has made lots of people.