Public Interst Litigation: Indian Scenerio

The idea of Public Interest Litigation otherwise called Social Interest Litigation has been turned out to be extremely well known in present time for each issue which included, for example, street security, contamination, psychological oppression, scrutinizing the administration choice, therapeutic issue, constructional risks and so on. The expression ‘Public Law Litigation’ was first noticeably utilized by American Scholastic Abram Chayes to depict the act of legal advisers or open lively people who try to accelerate social change through court-requested pronouncements that change lawful standards, implement existing laws and lucid open norms. Implies any issue which included open enthusiasm on the loose.

Anybody can approach courtroom for reviewing the issue including open on the loose. This is the case recorded in the court by any gathering other than the oppressed party and a bit much that the individual whose intrigue is damaged approach the court. PIL is the device which associates legal straightforwardly from open. The extent of the legal audit is very extended in view of the idea of PIL. One can approach pinnacle court implies Supreme Court or High Courts under Article 32 and 226 separately for any encroachment of legitimate idea by Government or any statutory body even one can approach a court of Magistrate under Sec. 133 of Cr. P.C.


Discussing the scope in Indian situation as there is no enactment administering PIL so as under Article 141 of Constitution, law announced by Supreme Court is the law of land we have just points of reference to transfer upon. As in the expression of Bhagwati J. in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. The Union of India

 ‘’Public Interest Litigation is not the nature of adversary litigation but it is challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officer to make basic human right meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is signature tune of our constitution”

As seen on account of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India state is a sacred commitment to see that there is no infringement of the key right of any individual, especially when they have a place from underprivileged segment of the general public and not able to wage a lawful war against a solid and intense rival.

Judicial Activism

Really this term is very easy to refute. Blacks’ Law Dictionary characterizes this term as “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.”

While David A. Strauss characterized, legal activism can be barely characterized as at least one of three conceivable activities: toppling laws as unlawful, upsetting legal point of reference, and administering against a favored elucidation of the constitution.

In Indian setting this rule is followed, at exactly that point the idea of PIL appeared relying on the reality and conditions of various cases. Certain cases are Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. The Union of India, Mukesh Advani v. Condition of M.P[5], Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, M.C.Mehta v. The Union of India.

Public  Interest and Private Interest

At some point, there is strife between our own particular interests and others interests so at whatever point there is the sensible ground to trust that an appeal to style in the way of PIL to get individual revenge against another individual than the request of is to be rejected. On account of Kushum Lata v. The Union of India, apex court watched the distinction between private interest and public interest.

Locus Standi

Locus standi is the Latin expression which signifies ‘right to stand’. The general rule is that privilege to move to the court is correct whose Fundamental right is abused. In law locus standi implies the limit of the gathering to record the case under the watchful eye of the court, he needs to demonstrate that he has a self-interest generally court won’t engage the suit without considering its legitimacy, however, Public interest litigations developed the concept of public interest standing which is another shape to enlarge the extent of the locus standi.

In India, the idea of locus standi is changed by the goodness of the enlarge idea of PIL. Furthermore, this liberal state of mind of the court identifying with locus standi is changed in the renowned instance of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India otherwise called Judges Transfer Case.


In the present situation lot of PIL is filed in the official courtroom since it is the least expensive cure accessible to people in general in extensive and this is the cure other than customary one at less expensive cost. A lot of the PIL activist is working and they are filing PIL, scrutinizing the administration strategy and choice, abuse of certain arrangement of law, contamination and ecological measure and so on. All these are making the life of open in extensive bother free and agreeable yet then again some activist is exclusively working for the political advantages. There are measures to limit them like 38th Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia has expressed that significant fines would be forced on litigants filing frivolous  PILs and this step is widely welcomed.

Substantive Law: An Introduction

Law could be broadly categorised into two parts one is substantive law and other is procedural law. The substantive law could be defined as the part of the law that creates, defines and regulate rights and obligation of persons among each other and between the states. The substantive law consists of written statutory legislations passed by the legislature. While procedural laws are those set of rules which regulates how those rights and responsibilities are enforced.

The substantive law refers to the categories of public and private law, including the law of contracts, the law of torts, real property and criminal law. For instance, the criminal law defines certain behaviour illegal and also lists the element which government must prove to convict a person guilty of a crime. In contrast rights of an accused person is guaranteed under Article 20 (2) and (3) of the Indian constitution, known as double jeopardy and self-incrimination respectively is part of the procedural law.

Most of the substantive law comes from common law and found their base in judicial decisions until the 20th century. The substantive law governs people and organisation in their daily interactions; these are the laws that non-lawyers think of when they think about what law is. We could say that procedural laws are a door to litigation while substantive laws are set to govern the society and courts were set up for its enforcement.

The procedural foundation of substantive law

Heading seems ironical? Right. The substance-procedure dichotomy is a popular target of critics because the procedural law is inherently substantive. But they ignore that substantive law is also inherently procedural. The construction of substantive law carries assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is eventually enforced. Those procedures are ingredients of the substantive law and, if not applied, will lead to over- or under-enforcement of the substantive mandate. Yet the substance-procedure dichotomy encourages us to treat procedural systems as different leading to a problem of mismatches between substantive law and procedural law.

The procedure as a substance could be clearly summarised with the simple declaration that “Procedure is power” and any informed observers of the litigation process could understand the substantive capacity of the procedure. The argument that procedure is the part of substantive can be presented in two basic forms. The classic version is that procedure has substantive qualities because it affects the outcome of cases. The second version is that procedural reformers have a substantive agenda.

The substantive law relies on the procedure to bring out the substantive mandate. Substantive law without any procedure at all would be a vain and hollow thing. Although some substantive laws may be merely symbolic, it is surely true that “the best laws in the world are meaningless unless they can be meaningfully enforced.” Substantive law without procedural law would be a castle in the air. As castles in the air are seldom built, the substantive law would seldom be constructed without some procedure to vindicate that law.

Summarising the whole argument we come to the conclusion that understanding that procedure is substantive, and that substance is procedural, debunks two myths: first, that there is a substance-procedure are two completely different things, and second, that procedure is the inferior partner.