The preamble to the Indian Constitution declares India to be a ‘democratic republic’ and guarantees justice, liberty and equality to all its citizens. The Indian Constitution assigns sufficiently delineated functions and powers to the three state organs, i.e., the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and no organ can surpass the authority of the others.
Judiciary being sentinel of the constitutional and statutory rights of the citizens, has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. it can review legislations and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of the constitution and law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights , a citizen has a right to move the supreme court of high courts directly by invoking writ jurisdiction of others.
The high cost and complexity of proceedings in litigation, however, make equal access to justice, a mere slogan in respect of millions of destiute and under-priviledged masses striken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. “Golden key to unlock the door of justice,’ remains only with the moneyed people, so , the supreme court of india pioneered the concept of PIL, i.e. public interest litigatin, and therby opened the paths of courts to the common men.
The landmarks innovation of PIL includes the following:
1. The traditional rule of Locus Standi, denounced sometimes for being a jural hand-over of the Victoria era, permitted only a party to the dispute to bring a suit.
Seeds of Liberal expansion of Locus Standi rule were sown in 1975 but new era of PIL movement was heralded in 1982 when P.N. Bhagwati, Hon’ble Justice of Supreme court, laid down that, any member of a public or social action group acting “bona fide” can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the high court or supreme court seeking redressal remedy against violation of legal or constitutional rights of person, who owing to social or other disability, cannot approach the court. The judgement also declared PIL a patent weapon for the enforcement of “Public duties”, where executive inactions or misdeeds resulted in “public authority”.
2. Epistolary jurisdiction or treating mere letters as writ petitions:
Procedure being merely a landmark of justice the Supreme court started treating mere letters addressed to it, as writ petitions in cases involving larger public interest or gross violation of fundamental rights. Pursuant of such letters by public spirited petitioners relief has been granted in cases of bonded labourers, legal detenue, custodial death and torture,environmental pollution and so on. In few cases the courts have been taken suo moto cognizance of “letters to editor” in the newspapers and treating them as petitions, granted appropriate relief.
3.Appointing Socio-legal Commissions if inquiry:
Making marked departure from its adversial method prevailing hitherto, the supreme court has resorted to inquistorial method in PIL matters . It, therfore, appointed commissioners from among Advocates, Professors, Magistrates, Journalists or other responsible persons for collecting facts in PIL cases. For instance, eye-specialists were ordered to ascertain nature and extent to harm in Bhagalpur Prisoners. A noted sociologist was sent as Commissioner to enquire into working conditions, etc of labourers in stone-quarries of Faridabad.
4. Monitoring laws and judicial orders:
Bureaucratic lethargy breeds frequent violations of laws and no-execution of judicial orders, which in terms lead to lawlessness in society. Thus, in many instances, the courts have themselves monitored CBI investigation and by thier own orders, have been monitoring anti-polluting laws, etc.
5. Enfrocing Public duties:
It is one of the primary duties of the courts to keep the other organs withing thier constitutional bounds and to direct them to perform their affirmative constitutional obligations.
