Group 8- 11th April Class Notes

Public Interest Litigation

Is the legitimacy of/ trust in judicial activism being adversely affected by these twisted and sort of, personal conception of “public interest” by the judges?

The Supreme Court says that they’re doing the legislation a favor; argue that since they aren’t doing they’re job, the Judges have to. Use this as an excuse for judicial overreach.

Lots of PIL’s get clubbed together due to there being many of a similar category. Also, PILs are clubbed together in frivolous PIL cases. Use them as an excuse to get rid of many PILs in a single case.

In the past, cases on gender bias have been deemed as luxury litigation. Who decides what is luxury litigation, is the judicial agenda changing. Is it defined by the upper middle class concerns of the supreme court justices?

Who has locus standi? - If you get rid of locus standi, everyone will come to court.

Shri Dinesh Trivedi, MP. Case – Public has the right to information regarding their elected personnel – their assets, education, and if there are any criminal charges against them. PILs helped the public get to know their elected representatives background and finances.

What drives Public Interest Litigation? – Governance crisis that litigation can fill – leads to judicial overreach; triple talaq case example. – also cases reaching the court depend on the closeness of the high court to the supreme court – also depends on which judge does it reach.

Emergency played an important role in the history of PIL and other litigation. – Conclusion reached by Epp was wrong, critiqued by Upendra Bakshi. Only looked at reported cases(About 2000 PIL’s in a month) does not look at number of PILs.

Supreme court has given itself De-Facto/Docket Control over public interest litigation. – Which cases to hear, and who shall hear them is an enormous power.

Nepotism and power in getting your PIL heard. Is access to justice only for people who were anyways powerful? Are the personal conception of the individual justices reflected in their selection. Responsibility in filing PIL, of the people filing it? Or the people judging it?

Social action litigation, vs public interest litigation.

Question raised regarding PIL - Is judicial activism because people are bringing new types of cases? Or is it that the judiciary ‘s agenda changing?

PIL never abolished, because it helps the interests of the government, as a means to harass the opposition.

Group 7 Presentation on Public Interest Litigation:

PIL is a jurisdiction unique to the Indian higher judiciary that arose in the late 1970s in the aftermath of the political Emergency of 1975-77.

Allowed the Common Man to be heard in regards to the politicians.

Characteristics

·       Procedural flexibility – Not bound by the same rules of procedures.

·       Procedures for rehabilitation distinguished. Humanitarianism should be distinguished from miscarriage of mercy.

·       No consistent reasoning for PIL’s.

Operates under the standing of “vacuum in governance, the Court rushes to fill it”

Judges in PIL:

·       Have tremendous power, to design innovative solutions, direct policy changes, catalyse law-making, reprimand officials and enforce orders.

Delhi in the early 2000s went through dramatic transformations that are recognizable in cities all over the Global South. What marks Delhi’s dislocations as distinct is their source and their basis — they are based not, as in the past, on administrative or municipal policy or executive directions, but on judicial directions in a series of PILs concerning the city.

The question worth asking is how and why did PIL emerge as the primary agent of such transformations in Delhi and dominate for so long?

Only with the 2010 CWG did the City Legislature and Executive reassert their authority that too requiring full Central backing.