6.4.1. Some Early PILs

In 1979, newspapers published reports about ‘under trials’. There were many prisoners in Bihar who had spent long years in jail, longer than what they would have spent if they had been punished for the offences for which they were arrested. This report prompted an advocate to file a petition. The Supreme Court heard this case. It became famous as one of the early Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

This chunk introduces Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, highlighting the pivotal case in 1979 that brought attention to the plight of undertrial prisoners. The media reported on prisoners in Bihar who were held longer than their expected sentences. An advocate used this report to initiate a lawsuit, which drew the Supreme Court's attention and marked the beginning of PILs in India, allowing the court to address broader societal issues.

Imagine a situation where a group of friends learns that their neighborhood park is being neglected, causing children to play in unsafe areas. Inspired by their concern, they decide to write to their local council, advocating to improve the park’s condition. This is similar to how advocates might file a PIL on behalf of those who cannot approach the courts themselves, focusing on collective community issues rather than individual grievances.

This was the Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar case.

The Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar case is a landmark moment in the history of PIL. The case dealt with the violation of the rights of individuals who were imprisoned without trial. By taking this case to the Supreme Court, the advocate played a crucial role in highlighting the injustices faced by these undertrial prisoners. This case established a precedent for future PILs and reinforced the judiciary's responsibility to uphold the rights of citizens, particularly the marginalized.

Consider how a school might have policies that inadvertently punish students for minor infractions without giving them a chance to explain their side. A student might bring this to a teacher’s attention, advocating for a fairer system. Similarly, the Hussainara Khatoon case brought to light the importance of fair legal processes for those who couldn’t advocate for themselves, ensuring justice wasn't just theoretical but a reality for all.

In 1980, a prison inmate of the Tihar jail managed to send a scribbled piece of paper to Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court narrating physical torture of the prisoners. The judge got it converted into a petition. Though later on, the Court abandoned the practice of considering letters, this case, known as Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1980) also became one of the pioneers of public interest litigation.

The Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration case is another significant example of early PILs. An inmate sent a letter to the Supreme Court detailing the torture he faced in prison. Justice Krishna Iyer transformed this letter into a legal petition, thereby emphasizing the need for judicial intervention in protecting prisoners' rights. Although the practice of accepting letters as petitions was eventually stopped, this case illustrated the judiciary's role in responding to human rights violations, setting a precedent for PILs focused on welfare and justice.

Think of a whistleblower in a company who notices unethical practices and writes an anonymous letter to management. When management takes that letter seriously and investigates, it showcases how individuals can spark significant change by speaking out. Similarly, the Sunil Batra case demonstrates how one person's courage to report mistreatment led to judicial action, exemplifying the power of advocacy for those unable to voice their struggles.

Through the PIL, the court has expanded the idea of rights. Clean air, unpolluted water, decent living, etc., are rights for the entire society. Therefore, it was felt by the courts that individuals as parts of the society must have the right to seek justice wherever such rights were violated.

This chunk explains how PIL has broadened the concept of rights in India. The judiciary recognized that rights extend beyond individual grievances; they encompass societal welfare, such as the right to clean air and water. By doing so, the courts empowered individuals and communities to seek justice for collective rights, reinforcing the principle that everyone has an obligation to protect the environment and public health. This shift has been instrumental in giving a voice to marginalized groups and enhancing accountability.

Imagine living in a community where pollution from a factory affects everyone’s health, but individual complaints seem insignificant on their own. If community members come together and file a lawsuit demanding cleaner air, it illustrates how collective action through PILs can address widespread injustices, just like how courts enable community-driven initiatives to seek justice and enhance living conditions.

Judicial activism has had manifold impact on the political system. It has democratised the judicial system by giving not just to individuals but also groups access to the courts.

This chunk summarizes the impact of judicial activism, particularly through the vehicle of PILs. By allowing groups and not just individuals to approach the courts, it has democratized access to justice. This democratization means that smaller, less powerful collectives can now challenge authorities or seek redress in ways that were previously unavailable. The positive effect of engaging with the judiciary has led to a more responsive and socially aware legal system, where the courts actively protect citizen rights and freedoms.

Consider how a neighborhood association might band together to address the issue of high traffic speeds in their area. Instead of each person individually petitioning the city, they collectively approach local officials for speed bumps. This collective action mirrors how groups engage the judiciary through PILs, strengthening their collective voice and ensuring their concerns are heard, ultimately leading to meaningful change.

--