IMPORTANT POINT
Significance of Public Interest Litigation is in its being non-adversarial source of righting some wrongs and encouraging social change through accountability and, in cases, transparency.

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Over the years, public interest litigation has brought immense social change through interventions made and directions issued by this Court. Public interest litigation has been initiated, very rarely, by suo motu [Suo Motu Writ Petitions: In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue Death, (2016) 10 SCC 709, In Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, (2002) 3 SCC 31, In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business and Financial News, (2014) 2 SCC 786] exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. On most occasions, it has been initiated through a writ petition filed by activist individuals or organizations [Writ Petitions filed: MC Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak], (1986) 2 SCC 176, Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1]. Again, quite infrequently, it has been initiated on the basis of a communication received by this Court [Letters Petitions: Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526, Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96, D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416].

2. During the last several decades, public interest litigation has compelled this Court to consider issues relating to the environment, social justice, violation of human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the failure of the State to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by Parliament [Absence of Governance: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1997) 10 SCC 549, Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433, Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498] or due to mis-governance by the State, that is, the Central Government, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations leading to rampant illegalities [Mis-Governance: Common Cause v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 501, Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 516]. The failure of the State to take remedial steps to fill in the gap when there is no operative law [When there is no operative law: Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, In Re: Noise Pollution (V), (2005) 5 SCC 733, Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. [Vrindavan Widows] (2017) 16 SCC 780, MC Mehta [Taj Trapezium] v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353], except that enshrined in the Constitution, more particularly Article 21 has resulted in public interest litigation and at least two cases where a treaty obligation ought to be fulfilled [Treaty Obligation: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [CEDAW], (1997) 6 SCC 241, Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India [ILO Asbestos Convention], (1995) 3 SCC 42].

3. In recent times, usually and regrettably, the State has chosen to challenge the idea of public interest litigation or denigrate it by chanting the mantra of ‘judicial activism’ or ‘separation of powers’. In most cases, these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the State to recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing social justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. There must be a realization that public interest litigation has given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women and children. Public interest litigation is one of the more important contributions of India to jurisprudence. In fact, the Indian experience has encouraged some other countries to introduce public interest litigation in their jurisprudence.

4. This is not to suggest that public interest litigation has not been misused or that occasionally this Court has not exceeded its jurisdiction, but it must be emphasised