Invisible Inequalities

Author(s):  
Shomona Khanna

Started in 1997, Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA) is a national movement for eradicating the practice of manual scavenging—an occupation which involves cleaning of dry latrines with tin plates and brooms and carrying of human excreta by members of lower castes. The SKA has been leading the public campaign to destroy illegal dry latrines and for the proper implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. In 2003, SKA, with 18 other organizations, filed a public interest litigation petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking eradication of manual scavenging, liberation of all manual scavengers from their degrading jobs, and initiation of measures for their rehabilitation. The SKA also works for the dignity and better working conditions for sanitation workers such as sewage workers, pit workers, and sweepers. This chapter seeks to record the work of SKA including its influence on the law and policymaking process.

2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Sourya Bandyopadhyay

Studies in Public interest Litigation (PIL) in India are predominantly about the Supreme Court's approach in meeting the ends of justice through indigenously evolved jurisdiction. The High Courts as important constitutional bodies are more often than not remain out of detailed discussion. As the High Courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with regard to PILs, this paper aims to study the pattern of invocation of the jurisdiction at the regional level. It surveys the variety of pleas and consequent action under PIL jurisdiction (or inaction, as the case may be) of different High Courts in India relating to covid crisis and consequential matters. To that end, it undertakes a survey of High Court orders or judgments from April to July, 2020. It seeks to lay bare the extent of demands that are made before the Courts through PIL. What kinds of action were expected from the High Courts during the pandemic? How did different Courts respond to such pleas? Were the directions and level of response homogenous or varied? The paper pursues these questions, and describes the pandemic though the lens of PIL in Indian High Courts. It goes on to argue that the High Courts in India need to take greater cognizance of their orders inter-se especially in PIL matters, as human rights protection through PIL cannot have contradictory voices.


Author(s):  
Florian Matthey-Prakash

Chapter 4 deals with the issue of lack of access to justice and attempts to find reasons for the inaccessibility of the higher judiciary. While it appears to be clear to observers that the Supreme Court and high courts are not accessible enough, surprisingly, there are actually no empirical studies that examine why this is the case. Some factors can, however, be deduced from a study dealing with the inaccessibility of district courts, that is, the lower judiciary.The fourth chapter also shows that the institution of Public Interest Litigation, for various reasons, cannot compensate for lack of access to justice, and that the state is not properly implementing (or not at all exploring) many other possible alternative mechanisms.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
M P Ram Mohan ◽  
Shashi Kant Yadav

Indian authorities have formulated and implemented several policies for exploration, production, refining, transportation, and distribution of its Oil & Gas (O&G) resources. With respect to governance of O&G industry, though, the Indian Constitution envisions larger role of Central government, however, the legislative power, over O&G resources, has been in contention between Centre and States over the past seven decades. Moreover, the legislative power of the central government over O&G resources is subject to ‘public interest’ ensuring that the resources are regulated for common good. The interaction between business policies and public interest, and law-making power between Centre and States have been subject to the Supreme Court's (Court's) review covering the constitutional aspects of O&G sector. These constitutional decisions determined the energy progression in India, especially understanding the ‘shape and form’ of energy justice in India. The paper analyses the role of the Supreme Court of India in balancing public interest and business policies through mapping of all the constitutional cases and also important administrative matters, consecutively laying down the foundation of distributive energy justice in India.


Author(s):  
Divan Shyam

This chapter examines public interest litigation (PIL) and its place in Indian constitutional law. The chapter begins with an overview of PIL as an instrument for dealing with public grievances such as flagrant human rights violations by the State, or for vindicating the public policies embodied in statutes or constitutional provisions. It then discusses the evolution of PIL in India and four distinct factors that contributed to its growth. It also explores how courts efficiently deploy judicial resources and decide genuine disputes of a legal character by recognising only those persons with locus standi, or legal standing. Finally, it describes a range of procedural innovations that distinguish PIL from conventional litigation and explains how the growth of PIL affected traditional notions of justiciability. It shows how the phenomenon of PIL has shaped both the nature of rights-based claims within Indian constitutional law as well as the role of the Supreme Court within Indian democracy.


Author(s):  
Sayantan Bhattacharyya ◽  
Moksh Ranawat

ABSTRACT The arbitrability of civil fraud under Indian jurisprudence had been a victim of vaguely worded and scattered tests for a considerable period of time. In its recent decision in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd v HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., the Supreme Court of India finally put the uncertainties regarding the matter to rest by harmonizing the existing law on it and crystallizing the ‘public flavour’ standard. According to this standard, allegations of fraud which find their roots in civil law and have no public considerations shall now be considered arbitrable in India. The judgment also clarified the impact that parallel criminal proceedings based on the same set of facts would have on the arbitrability of the civil aspects of such fraud, bringing necessary clarity to the erstwhile regime. In this article, we explore the implications of this judgment in detail, highlighting its relevance for arbitration in India, and how it impacts the jurisprudential position on the arbitrability of fraud in the country.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document