LLM Notes: Judicial Activism in Protecting Child Rights: A Critical Analysis of PILs and Key Judgments

 Main Takeaway: The Indian judiciary, through expansive interpretation of fundamental rights and liberalized standing, has employed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as an effective instrument of judicial activism to safeguard children from exploitation, neglect, and abuse. Landmark rulings have not only filled legislative gaps but also compelled executive action for rehabilitation and systemic reform.

Conceptual Framework of Judicial Activism and PIL

Print Page

Supreme Court: Public Interest at Stake: Res Judicata’s Relaxed Application in PILs

 Res Judicata and Public Interest Litigation: Lessons from Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs. State of UP (AIR 1988 SC 2187)

Introduction

The landmark case of Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a cornerstone in Indian environmental jurisprudence and the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). One of its most significant contributions is the Supreme Court’s clarification on the doctrine of res judicata and its limited application in the context of PILs. This article examines the case background, the legal reasoning, and the broader implications for procedural law in matters of public interest.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Guardians of Dignity: The Role of Indian Judiciary in Prison System Reform

 India's prison system has long faced significant challenges including overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and human rights violations. In this context, the Indian judiciary has emerged as a powerful champion for prisoner rights and prison reform through landmark judgments, innovative interpretations of constitutional provisions, and continuous oversight mechanisms. The courts have not merely addressed individual grievances but have proactively worked to transform the prison system from a punitive structure to a rehabilitative one.

Constitutional Foundation of Judicial Intervention

The judiciary in India derives its authority to intervene in prison matters from the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14, 21, and 22, which establish fundamental rights that protect all individuals, including those incarcerated. These constitutional provisions serve as the bedrock upon which courts have built a robust framework of prisoner protections.

Print Page

Understanding Public Interest Litigation and Class Action Lawsuits: A Comparative Analysis

In the realm of legal recourse, two mechanisms stand out for their ability to address collective grievances: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India and class action lawsuits in countries like the United States. While both serve the purpose of enhancing access to justice, they operate under different frameworks and serve distinct objectives. In this blog post, we’ll explore the similarities and differences between PILs and class actions, shedding light on how each mechanism functions.

Similarities Between PIL and Class Action Lawsuits

1. Collective Representation

Both PILs and class actions allow individuals or groups to seek justice on behalf of a larger community. In a PIL, any public-spirited citizen can file a petition for issues affecting the public interest. Conversely, in class actions, one or more plaintiffs represent a larger group of individuals who have suffered similar harm. This collective representation ensures that the voices of many are heard in court.

Print Page

Understanding Public Interest Litigation in India: Origins, Implementation, Advantages, and Disadvantages

 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a powerful legal tool in India, designed to ensure justice for those who might otherwise be voiceless. In this blog post, we’ll explore the origins of PIL, how it’s implemented, its advantages, and the challenges it faces.

The Origins of Public Interest Litigation

The concept of Public Interest Litigation in India took root in the late 1970s, thanks to the visionary efforts of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. The landmark case Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) played a crucial role in shaping PIL as we know it today. This case highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners, emphasizing that the right to speedy justice is a fundamental right. 

Print Page

Guidelines on termination of pregnancy of woman prisoners

In view of the above, directions are given as under:--

"1. (i). Upon admission into a jail/prison, every woman prisoner of child bearing age shall undergo a Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) within 5 days of being admitted to jail.
(ii) Every woman prisoner of child bearing age shall undergo a second UPT approximately 30 days after admission into jail/prison in case the UPT under 1(i) is not positive.
2. In case, the urine pregnancy test is positive, the Medical Officer shall inform the prisoner that she can get the pregnancy terminated if her case falls under Section 3 or 5 of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
3. If the prisoner indicates she wants to terminate the pregnancy, her statement should be recorded by the Jail Authority or Medical Officer to that effect and the record of the statement be maintained. A copy of that statement be forwarded with the prisoner when she is referred to the hospital.
4. If the prisoner indicates that she wants to terminate the pregnancy, the Medical Officer and Jail Superintendent shall ensure that woman prisoner is sent on urgent basis to the nearest Government Hospital to help her terminate the pregnancy. It is made clear that they shall not wait for any order of the Court if the case falls under Sections 3 or 5 of the Act.
5. Every prison shall maintain "Prison OPD Register" where details of every prisoner examined either by the prison medical officer/doctor or visiting doctor are entered. Such register shall contain in brief (i) the name of the prisoner; (ii) convict or undertrial number, (iii) the medical complaint of the prisoner; (iv) the advice of the doctor (including referral of the patient to the nearest government Hospital) and (v) the date for follow up when necessary. The Prison OPD Register be produced for inspection of the Sessions Judge/Magistrate deputed to visit the prison.
6. The Jail Superintendent and escort division to ensure that such prisoner as well as other prisoners needing medical treatment in a hospital are sent to the hospital as far as possible by 8:30 a.m. i.e when O.P.D opens.

7. After discharge from the said hospital, the prison authorities shall take due care of the woman prisoner until she fully recovers from the medical termination of her pregnancy."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 1 of 2016

Decided On: 19.09.2016

 High Court on its own Motion
Vs.
 The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:V.K. Tahilramani and Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.

Citation:2017 CRLJ218 Bom

Print Page

When court will not permit filing of public interest litigation?

Even otherwise, the petitioner has mentioned various social
activities that it has been conducting. However, it is to be noticed that
this Court has framed the Maintainability of the Public Interest
Litigation Rules, 2010 ('the Rules' - for short). Rule 7 of the Rules
envisages that the Registry is entitled to verify the antecedents of a
person, society or an association that invokes the jurisdiction of this
Court on the cause of public interest. Besides, where the Registry has
any doubt on such antecedents, an office note to that effect is to be put
up, except on the petitions which are received by post. The Registry in
the present case raised objections regarding the maintainability of public
interest litigation, which inter alia records that the writ petition be filed
according to the directions passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 15987 of 2013,
decided on 26.07.2013, which was available on the High Court website,
reported in (2013 - 4) PLR 367. In response to the same, the petitioner
merely recorded; 'PIL is maintainable and falls within the Rules'. It is
mentioned that credentials of the petitioner were evident from general
profile (Annexure P2), Constitution of Society (Annexure P3),
appreciation letter (Annexure P4) and registration certificate (Annexure
P1).
In Ajaib Singh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court
emphasized that a petitioner has to specifically disclose his credentials
and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case,
if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression “specifically disclose his
credentials”, it was held, must naturally, imply that he has to set forth
what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing,

the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter
preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court had passed orders,
etc. It could not imply merely writing a sentence that a person is residing
in the State, is 'public-spirited' and is, thus, filing a PIL. A direction was
issued to the Registry to ensure strict compliance with these rules and to
return petitions styled as PIL with objection (s) unless these parameters
were specified. It was held that in fact, there is a mandate on the Registry
as per Clause-7 of the said Rules to verify the antecedents of the persons,
Societies or Associations who invoke jurisdiction on the cause of public
interest and, if they are not satisfied with the antecedents, to return the
petition.
 The petitioner has referred to the registration certificate
(Annexure P1) certifying that the Scientific Awareness and Social
Welfare Forum, Sangrur had been registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and as amended by the Punjab Amendment Act,
1957. The certificate was issued on 14.05.2004 by the Additional
Registrar-cum-General Manager, District Industries Centre, Malerkotla
(Sangrur). The general profile (Annexure P2) mentions the names of
members, office bearers , executive members and aims of the petitioner;
besides, the other activities that have been conducted. A list of great
donors to the petitioner Forum and the amount given have been
mentioned. The Constitution (Annexure P3) of the petitioner Forum has
been placed on record which also includes its Memorandum. In the
Memorandum, it has been mentioned that the Funds of the Society will
be deposited in any recognized bank and that withdrawal of the funds
cannot be allowed without the signatures of two officer bearers out of

President, Secretary and Finance Secretary. A list of the members who
unanimously passed the resolution on 27.11.2004 relating to the
Memorandum has been given. Letter of appreciation (Annexure P4) has
been issued by one, 'Public Cause Research Foundation' situated at
Gaziabad.
The said documents though mention that the petitioner
Forum is carrying out various public activities; however, there is no
material to substantiate the same. The letter of appreciation (Annexure
P4) is unclear as to what is the standing of the 'Public Cause Research
Foundation', which has issued the letter of appreciation. Besides, there
is a provision for collection of funds and the manner in which it is to be
used, however, it is not disclosed as to in which bank funds are being
maintained.
In Bhartiya Homeopathy College, Bharatpur v. Students'
Council of Homeopathy Medical College, Jaipur and others, (1998) 2
SCC 449, the Supreme Court delineated the points relevant for deciding
the maintainability of a PIL. A union of students had challenged the
action of the Vice-Chancellor by way of a PIL. It was held that such a
union, must disclose: (i) whether it was authorized to file the litigation;
(ii) if so, by whom; (iii) whether it has sufficient funds to indulge in such
litigation; and (iv) the basis of alleging harm to public interest.
Otherwise, it was held that it should not be allowed lightly to litigate in
the name of public interest to cause damage to others.
The petitioner Forum has not shown as to whether it has
been authorized to file the litigation and, if so, by whom. Besides, it has
not been disclosed whether it has sufficient funds to indulge in such a

litigation. The list of donors though has been mentioned, but it has not
been disclosed as to in which bank the funds are being maintained and
whether the funds have been allowed to be withdrawn for filing the
present petition. Besides, it has not been disclosed that the chart by
which the penalty is shown to have been imposed, then as to what harm
has been caused to the public. Therefore, on the basis of material as
placed on record, the petitioner Forum is not liable to be allowed to
litigate lightly in the name of public interest which may cause damage to
the others.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
 CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 19540 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.09.2016.
Scientific Awareness & Social Welfare Forum through Sham Lal Singla

V
State of Punjab and another

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR(JOURNAL) 9

Print Page

When doctrine of Res Judicata is not applicable in Public Interest Litigation?

 It is not disputed that the present petition was filed
immediately after the petitioners obtained an information about the
plans which were sanctioned by the concerned authorities in respect of
the hotel project of the respondent no.7. The respondent nos. 7 and 9
admittedly were not parties to the earlier petition. The petitioner no.2
also was not a party to the said petition. Even before the above Writ
Petition No. 115 of 1992 was finally disposed of on 15.07.1998, the
petitioners filed the present Writ Petition on 23.06.1993. Apart from
that, on perusal of the earlier judgment passed by this Court dated
15.07.1998, it is clearly stated therein that the grievance of the
petitioners was the approval of the projects along the coastal line
without preparing the coastal zone management plan. As in the
meanwhile, the Central Government had approved the management plan
on 27.09.1996, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition. In such
circumstances, the contention of Mr. Dada, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 7 and 9 that the contentions sought
to be raised by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition were directly
and substantially in issue in the said Writ Petition cannot be accepted.
Apart from that, as already pointed out herein above, the respondent
nos. 7 and 9 nor the petitioner no.2 were parties to the said Writ
Petition. Besides, the petitioners filed the above Writ Petition by raising
the claims during the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition. In such
circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 and 9 reported
in 1985(2) SCC 670 in the case of Daman Singh and others Vs
State of Punjab is not applicable to the facts in the present case. The
Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SC 2134 in the case
of M/s International Woollen Mills V/s M/s. Standard Wool
(U.K.) Ltd., has observed at para 10 thus :
“10. …..........................Mr. Hingorani
however submitted that this case would
be covered by Explanation IV to Section
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He
submitted that in the earlier Application
the defence regarding non -compliance of
Section 13(b) could have been taken but
had not been taken. He submitted that it
was not open to the Appellants to take
such a defence in a subsequent
Application. In our view there is no
substance in this submission. Explanation
IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil
procedure would have come into play only
if some decision had been finally given
before the second Application was filed. In
that event it could have been urged that
all available points should have been
urged before that decision was given. In
this case the second Application was filed
before any decision on the first Application
was given. The Appellants could have,
instead of filing a second Application,
amended their first Application and taken
these pleas in that Application itself. Had
they amended the first Application there
would be no bar of res-judicata or
constructive res judicata. If that be so one
fails to understand how the second
Application was barred by principles of
res-judicata or constructive res- judicata.
To be remembered that the Orders were
passed after hearing arguments on both
the Applications. Under such
circumstances no question arises of their
being any res-judicata or constructive resjudicata.”
Admittedly, the present Writ Petition was filed disputing the
permissions granted to the respondent no.7 much prior to the disposal
of the earlier Writ Petition when there was no final decision therein and
as such the question of contending that the present Writ Petition isbarred by principle of constructive res judicata cannot be accepted. It is
also to be noted that the respondent no.7 did not take any steps, if at all
they were so interested to take up the above Writ Petition along with the
said Writ Petition No. 115 of 1992 though from the records in the
present petition they had knowledge about the pendency of such
petition. The judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by Mr. Dada,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 and 9 reported
in (1986) 1 SCC 100 in the case of Forward Construction Co. and
others Vs Prabhat Mandal (Regd.) Andheri and others is not at all
applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts therein are that
after an earlier petition was finally disposed of, another petition came to
be filed by some parties under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking almost the same relief. As pointed out herein above, in the
present case, the reliefs are different. Besides, the respondent nos. 7
and 9 nor petitioner no.2 were parties to the earlier petition. The
infringements pointed out by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition
were not directly and substantially in issue nor adjudicated in the said
Writ Petition No. 115 of 1992. The principles of res judicata are not
otherwise ordinarily applicable to Public Interest Litigation and in such
circumstances, we find that the contention of Mr. Dada, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 and 9 that the above Writ

Petition is barred by principle of res judicata cannot be accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
 WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 1993
 The Goa Foundation,
V e r s u s
 The North Goa Planning and Development
Authority,
 Coram:- F. M. REIS &
 K. L. WADANE, JJ
 Judgment pronounced on : 29.06.2015 
Citation; 2016 (2)MHLJ 566

Print Page

Whether compromise between parties can be allowed in public interest litigation?

 It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this
appeal, the parties have tried to reach an amicable
settlement, however the same remained unsuccessful. Be as
that may, this nature of ligation cannot be allowed to be
settled between the parties as it involves public
interest and violation of rule of law.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 8284 of 2013
 ANIRUDH KUMAR 
Vs.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
Citation;(2015) 7 SCC 779

Print Page

Whether high court can issue directions in infructuous writ petition?

Equivalent Citation: 2015(3)RCR(Criminal)67, 2015(6)SCALE590, (2015)6SCC716

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6054 of 2013)

Decided On: 14.05.2015

State of U.P. and Ors.Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Dipak Misra, R.K. Agrawal and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Criminal - Validity of directions - Sections 207 and 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Present appeal filed against directions issued by High court pertaining to dispensation of requirement of committal of cases by Magistrate to Court of Sessions, supply of copies to accused and not to accept final report unless accused were produced - Whether impugned directions issued by High court was liable to be set aside - Held, manner in which sweeping directions issued by High Court, could not be appreciated - High Court erred in treating writ petition filed for quashing of FIR, as Public Interest Litigation, and issued sweeping directions - No requirement under Section 173 of Code for Investigating Officer to produce accused along with charge-sheet - No mandate in Section 207 of Code which requires police to prepare copies of all papers before chargesheet was filed - High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in asking State Authorities to file compliance report, in matter of dispensing with requirement of committal of cases as per Section 209 of Code - Therefore, impugned order by which sweeping directions were given by High Court, was liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed. 

Print Page