Public Interest Litigation Essay Example

awareness to the slave-like conditions of bonded labourers in quarries to the Court. Furthermore, a journalist filed a case against the evictions of pavement dwellers in Bombay, and other similar cases emerged subsequently.

The Court created a new system of citizen rights and State obligations while introducing innovative accountability methods to handle such cases. Justice P.N. Bhagwati accurately defined the objective of PIL when it was first introduced in 1982. By defining it as a "strategic arm" of the legal aid movement, PIL aimed to provide justice to the poor whose plight often goes unnoticed. As opposed to traditional litigation, PIL serves a unique purpose.

Thanks to Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court's clientele expanded beyond affluent individuals, businessmen, and corporations to include the common man and marginalized sections of society. Social activists played a vital role in enabling such easy access for vulnerable people. The unique form of justice activism was praised by renowned judges like Lord Harry Woolf of the United Kingdom and Justice Michael Kirby of Australia. While PIL has been highly effective in guaranteeing the rights of the underprivileged, it gradually dipped in significance and gave rise to a new form of "public cause litigation." Here, court intervention is mandatory not to protect the rights of the poor but to rectify executive or public officials' actions or omissions. The court's involvement in such cases has risen progressively, with countless similar examples. Check out this link for more information on whether the judiciary truly represents the weakest branch of government.The Supreme Court issued a variety of orders to prevent pollution, including control of automobile

emissions, air and noise pollution, and traffic pollution. The court also ordered parking charges, required helmets to be worn in cities, enforced cleanliness in housing colonies, regulated garbage disposal, controlled traffic in New Delhi, mandated the wearing of seat belts, created action plans to combat monkey problems in urban areas and prevent accidents at unmanned railway crossings, prevented hazing of college freshmen, established blood banks for collection and storage of blood, and controlled loudspeakers while banning firecrackers. Additionally, the court has recently ordered the intricate engineering of interlinking rivers in India.

Enforcement of fundamental rights has been carried out by the Court through various restrictive orders under Article 32 of the Constitution. These have covered diverse issues such as banning black film on automobile windows, criticizing the Delhi Administration for removing Baba Ramdev from the Ramlila grounds, and excluding tourists from the core area of tiger reserves.

The Court's involvement in such cases is not based on fundamental rights or legal matters, but rather on the goal of improving governance and administration. This does not require any genuine judicial function. The Supreme Court has controversially interpreted the Constitution as allowing for the Chief Justice and a collegium of four judges to seize the legally provided power of appointing judges after consultation with the President of India. This move is unprecedented worldwide since no other constitution grants judges the authority to select and appoint their colleagues.

The Court has the responsibility to monitor investigating and prosecution agencies in cases where they fail to investigate and prosecute government officials. The Jain Hawala case, the fodder scam involving Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Taj Corridor case involving Mayawati, and the 2G Telecom

scam prosecution of Telecom Minister and officials are examples of such cases. In 1993, during the Hazratbal operation in Kashmir, military operation conduct was addressed by the Court when hostages were strategically deprived of food supplies. The Court ordered that food provisions supplying 1,200 calories should be provided to them.

An Army General commented that the verdict of a Court of Law had a significant impact on an ongoing military operation—the first time in history such a judgment had been made. The Court's influence extends to legislative proceedings, as demonstrated by the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly case. The Supreme Court mandated that a Motion of Confidence be conducted and directed the Speaker to adhere to a specific agenda and refrain from considering other matters. Despite Article 212 of the Constitution prohibiting courts from inquiring into any legislative proceedings, the Court ordered the Assembly's proceedings to be recorded for reporting purposes.

The Court's jurisdiction extends to reviewing governmental policies, including the distribution of food-grains to those below the poverty line. This scrutiny even prompted the Prime Minister to caution against interfering with the government's intricate food distribution policies. In a landmark ruling on 2G Licenses, the Court asserted that all public resources must be transparently disposed of through a public auction to ensure fairness. The President sought legal counsel under Article 143 of the Constitution in response to this decision. Furthermore, in rejecting an expert opinion from TRAI proposing non-auction sales of 2G spectrum for teledensity advancement, the Court exhibited its disregard for constitutional separation of powers by assuming a supervisory role over other branches of government.

The eagerness to turn to the Supreme Court and 21 High Courts

for grievances against public authorities has shifted citizens' primary responsibility away from self-governance through representatives who hold legislators and the executive accountable for their actions. The judiciary often justifies its intervention with the argument that other branches of government have failed to fulfill their duties. However, this reasoning could also justify political branches taking over judicial functions in areas where inefficiencies and unmet expectations persist. Justice Jackson of the U.S. judiciary acknowledged this potential dilemma.

S. has appropriately stated that the belief in judicial activism that permits the effortless and frequent overruling of the decisions made by other branches of the Government is completely opposed to a belief in democracy. To the extent that it encourages the view that judges should be relied on to rectify the outcome of apathy on the part of the public, it is a destructive ideology. Unless the Supreme Court vigilantly establishes and enforces the limits of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which is so vital in India, it is at risk of becoming disorganized, unprincipled, overstepping into the duties of other branches of government, and ineffective due to its unselective utilization.