Blog Details

Introduction

The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganised consumers, citizens who were passionate about the environmental issues, etc. Public interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law, for the protection of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety, Constructional hazards etc. Any matter where the interest of the public at large is affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.

Public interest litigation isn't characterized in any rule or in any act. It has been interpreted by judges to consider the opinions of the public at large. It is the power given to the public by courts through judicial activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is being filed for public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual. There are some of the common matters which are entertained under PIL:-

• Bonded Labour matter
• Neglected Children
• Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers
• Atrocities committed against women
• Environmental pollution and disturbance of ecological balance
• Food adulteration
• Maintenance of heritage and culture

Evolution of PIL in India: Some Landmark Judgements

The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai.

The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners. The Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in subsequent cases.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India.

In this case, it was held that “any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court.

By this judgment, PIL became a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where executive action or misdeed resulted in public injury. And as a result, any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups can now approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of the general public or a section of the public are at stake. Justice Bhagwati did a lot to ensure that the concept of PILs was clearly enunciated. He did not insist on the observance of procedural technicalities and even treated ordinary letters from public-minded individuals as writ petitions.

Legal Professional’s Economic Distress- A National Distress 

For a better understanding of the matter, the PIL filed for the Lawyer’s Financial Hardship in the COVID-19 lockdown times is a perfect example.

In my recent effort, a writ petition under Article 32 had been filed because the petitioner had been witness to the hardship faced by the members of the legal fraternity, more particularly by the lawyers who earn their bread and butter from litigation by making a daily appearance in the court and also by the filing of the various petitions on behalf of the client, which by rule is always accompanied by a vakalatnama upon which a substantial amount of welfare stamp is affixed, according to rules farmed by the different State Bar Councils in consonance and conformity with the respective State Government and the Bar Council of India. In the petition, it was mentioned that all fingers are not of the same size, in a similar manner all lawyers are not self-sufficient to overcome the present economic crisis looming around, in this context it would be necessary to quote.

In Haniraj L Chulani (Dr.) v. Bar Council of Maharastra & Goa, the Supreme Court denied the plea of a medical practitioner to enrol as an Advocate in the following words:

"It is no doubt true that the right to live includes right to livelihood. However, the appellant is not denied his right to livelihood. He is already a professional carrying on the profession of a medical practitioner. He wants to have a second string to his bow. He wants simultaneously to be permitted to practise law with a view to earning additional or more livelihood. So far as his aforesaid demand is concerned the impugned rule requires that unless he gives up that other practice and joins wholeheartedly the legal profession he cannot be permitted to enter the legal profession."

Ever since the executive head of the Country decided to impose a nationwide lockdown starting from the last week of March 2020, which was gradually lifted with a few relaxations, the famine which struck the very foundation of the legal profession had been ignored till date and the issue now been taken up of the apex court in this regard though the damage is already done.

It is, in fact, an undisputed fact that litigation is created at the lowest level & law is meant to serve and not to rule but unfortunately the sense of service has been assigned a role limited to teacup discussion topics.

Lawyers were betrayed by none other than the so-called leaders and representatives at the respective State Bar Councils. Some of the Bar Councils in the name of financial assistance handed over a token amount of Rs. 5000/- to lawyers for survival in the lockdown which for them has continued for odd five months, while other instead of granting aid framed a rule to grant the loan to already distressed professionals, while others engaged themselves in red-tape process in setting up criteria

There were many petitions being filed before the different high courts and even the apex court by different individual lawyers but it seems that the temple of justice did not find it proper for the priest therein to beg for mercy from the lordship and all such petitions were rejected.

The thought which keeps pondering me is as to why lawyers cannot be expected to invoke Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution for the cause of their own profession, is Article  32  of the Constitution meant or its role being limited to, these days only such issues which are getting media hype or TRPs.

"Legal profession requires full-time attention and would not countenance an advocate riding two horses or more at a time. He has to be a full-time advocate or not at all.”

The recent relaxation on the above-quoted ratio, given by Gujarat Bar Council is not something to boast of but an issue in which as a professional my head hangs with a sense of shame and disgust. Did the Hon’ble Judges forget the above ratio laid by them? As the issue of migrant labours, the apex court in my view acted too late in the matter of lawyer distress.

The government is equally responsible as it went to announce a slew of economic packages for farmers, industries and other financial sectors, it deliberately kept its eyes and ears shut to the pain and cry of the lawyers who earn their bread and milk by daily appearances in court, earning small amounts. Likewise, the view taken in this regard by the policymakers and decision takers were micro rather than macro. The inaction of the government reminds one of  a proverb  “ when  Rome was burning, Nero was playing the flute.” 

Reason & Solution

An argument is being put forth that courts have started functioning by way of virtual hearing. Yet, again a question which stares right on our face is how many lawyers could actually afford the expensive technology or gadgets ? or How many of them actually had an opportunity within their limited source of income to be tech-savvy or were so educated in law school or colleges to be tech-savvy or were prepared with such contingencies?

It's better to be prepared for the future than to be sorry yet again. This period of distress should be taken as a lesson to learn by the Bar Council of India and it is expected from them that it should ensure that all law colleges across the country should be directed to make the law students tech-savvy in means of law research, drafting and court hearing. It is expected from BCI to set-up training sessions for lawyers all across India to make them ready and comfortable with e-courts functioning.

It is also the duty of the BCI to strengthen itself financially & have a big heart to aid and assist distressed lawyers by relaxing its norms. Moreover, being a statutory body its financial status and funding should be made available in the public domain, in order to maintain transparency, because lawyers today have suffered mainly because of apathy of the Bar Council of  India  &  State  Bar  Councils.

“One cannot expect a building to stand by removing the foundation or by letting it destroy”