Consider the following statements : 1. Public Interest Litigation is a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest. 2. PIL has reinforced the principle of locus standi. 3. Both citizens and organizations can file a PIL. 4. Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain PILs. How many of the statements given-above are correct?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to litigation filed in a court of law for the protection of the public interest. Hence, statement 1 is correct.
• It is not necessary for the petitioner to have a personal interest in the case. PILs are generally used to address issues affecting the public at large, such as environmental concerns, human rights violations, or government corruption.
• The primary purpose of PIL is to ensure that justice is accessible to all, especially those who are unable to approach the courts due to economic or social constraints.

Origin and Evolution

• PIL emerged in India in the late 1970s and early 1980s, primarily due to efforts of the Supreme Court of India under Chief Justices like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Legal Basis

• PILs are filed under Articles 32 (in the Supreme Court) and Article 226 (in the High Courts) of the Indian Constitution. Hence, statement 4 is correct.
• Article 32 provides the right to constitutional remedies, enabling individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. Article 226 allows the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights and for any other purpose.

Who Can File a PIL

• Locus Standi Relaxation: In traditional litigation, only the affected party can approach the court (locus standi). However, in PILs, any public-spirited individual, NGO, or social organization can file a petition on behalf of those who are unable to do so themselves. Hence, statement 2 is incorrect and 3 is correct.
• This relaxation is crucial for addressing issues where the victims may be economically or socially disadvantaged.

Landmark PIL Cases

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Focused on the rights of undertrial prisoners, leading to reforms in the criminal justice system.
• MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986): Addressed environmental issues, leading to significant measures to control air and water pollution.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace, known as the Vishaka Guidelines.