Article 21 + 32 – Evolution of Rights through PIL

·         One can invoke court’s jurisdiction just by writing a letter or sending a telegram. This has been termed epistolary jurisdiction.

·         Only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceedings of PIL has a locus standi

·         a person cannot file PIL for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration

·         PIL proceedings entail new forms of fact finding such as appointment of socio-legal commissions of inquiry and handing over the investigation to the National Human Rights Commission or CBI

·         The grant of interim relief in PIL cases does not preclude the aggrieved person to claim damages from a civil court

·         The human rights of prisoners subjected to torture,⁴ victims of police excesses,⁵ inmates of protective homes⁶ and mental asylums,⁷ bonded⁸ and child labour,⁹ victims of sexual harassment¹⁰ and earthquake victims¹¹ and many others have been protected by the Supreme Court.

·         In environmental cases the court has addressed the issues of environmental degradation such as vehicular pollution,¹² leakage of oleum gas from a factory,¹³ danger to the Taj Mahal from Mathura refinery,¹⁴ degradation of Ridge area in Delhi,¹⁵ pollution caused by shrimp farming,¹⁶ tanneries,¹⁷ and chemical industries¹⁸ and so on

·         The most abiding contribution of PIL has been the emergence of new human rights such as right to speedy trial, right against torture, right against bondage, right against sexual harassment, right to shelter and housing, right to dignity, right to clean environment, right to education, right to legal aid, right to health care and so on.

·         Compensation jurisprudence for custodial violence is a positive achievement of PIL but compensation award appear to be arbitrary and look more like a charity. The Court has not laid down the criteria or yardsticks to measure the amount of compensation to be given for violation of human rights.

PIL

·          Identifying Features of PIL

·         PIL Movement and Rights of the Poor and the Oppressed

·         Rights against Custodial Injustice

·         Right against Sexual Harassment

·         Right against Bondage

·         Rights of the Child

·         Right to Food

·         Right to Primary Education

 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India      

·          Where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right

·          such person or determinate class of person by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position unable to approach the court for relief

·          any member of public can maintain an application for appropriate direction under article 32 or 226

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar

·         first reported case of PIL seeking relief to the undertrial prisoners languishing in jails.

·         The PIL proceedings in this case resulted in the release of nearly 40,000 undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar jails

Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar

·         33 suspected criminals were blinded by the police in Bhagalpur jail in Bihar through putting acid into their eyes and then eyes were burnt

·         condemned the police barbarity in strongest terms and directed the Bihar government to bring the blinded persons to Delhi for medical treatment at the state’s expense.

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

·         the Supreme Court acted upon a letter petition in August 1986 by the chairman of the Legal Aid Services, West Bengal which referred to the increasing incidents of custodial deaths in West Bengal

·         The Court issued extensive directions to be followed by the police upon the arrest of a person and the minimum facilities available to such person.

·         Award of compensation for established infringement of indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 is a remedy available in public law since the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interests shall be protected and preserved.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa

·         The compensation jurisprudence was most clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in this case

·         In response to a PIL alleging death of a boy of 22 years in police custody the Court evolved the principle of public law doctrine of compensation for violation of human rights.

·         According to this doctrine, liability of the state for violation of human rights is absolute and admits of no exception such as sovereign immunity. In this case the court awarded Rs. 1,50,000 to the mother of the boy as compensation for custodial death.

Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India

·         The PIL arose out of indecent sexual assault by seven army personnel against six domestic servants traveling in train from Ranchi to Delhi. The Supreme Court, with a view to assisting rape victims, has laid down various broad guidelines.

·         These guidelines include the legal assistance, anonymity, compensation and rehabilitation to rape victims. The National Commission for Women was directed to evolve a scheme for providing adequate safeguards to these victims

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

·         the Supreme Court declared that sexual harassment of women at workplace constitutes violation of gender equality and right to dignity which are fundamental rights.

·         Taking note of the fact that the existing civil and penal laws in India did not provide adequate safeguards against sexual harassment at work place, the court laid down 12 guidelines to be followed by every employer to ensure prevention of sexual harassment.

·          Most importantly, the court ruled that all courts in India must construe the contents of fundamental rights in the light of international conventions so long as such conventions were not inconsistent with fundamental rights

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

·         The action was brought for the identification, release and rehabilitation of hundreds of bonded labour working in the stone quarries of Haryana. The court issued 21 directions to Haryana government.

·         In 1992 the court recounted the history of the case and was shocked to note that there was not the slightest improvement in the conditions of the workers of the stone quarries. The litigation ended up with one more warning to the government to be responsive to judicial directions

Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration 

·         Another PIL exposed the inhuman conditions of children in Tihar Jail, Delhi

Sanjay Suri v. Delhi Administration  

·         Sexual exploitation of children in Orissa jails also formed the subject matter of PIL

SCLAC v. Union of India 

·         The court again issued directions to every district judge to report to the court as to the exact position of juveniles in jails, setting up of juvenile homes, special homes and observation homes. In this case, the court expressed its satisfaction that except in Andaman and Nicobar, a Union Territory, no state had kept the children in jails. 

People’s Union For Civil Liberties v. Union Of India

·         the petitioners sought a direction for the enforcement of Famine Code and immediate release of food grains lying in the stocks of the Government of India.

·         Directions were also sought requiring the Government to frame fresh schemes of Public Distribution for the Scientific and Reasonable Distribution of food grains.

·         The Court expressed its deep concern that despite the fact that plenty of surplus food grains was lying in the stocks of the Union of India or drought affected areas, people were dying of starvation.

·         The Court gave several directions to the Central and state government to implement centrally sponsored poverty alleviation schemes.

Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

·         Court declared that every child in the country has a fundamental right to free and compulsory education and this right flowed directly from right to life under Article 21.

·         Beyond 14 years the right to education was subject to limits of economic capacity of the State. Here the directive principle in Article 45² was read into the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution.

·          The court clarified that it was not transferring the directive principle in article 41 to fundamental rights chapter but was merely relying on article 41 to illustrate the content of right to education flowing from Article 21 and that the limits of economic capacity was a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State.

Society for Unaided Private Schools Rajasthan v Union of India 

·         the Supreme Court⁸ upheld the provision in the RTE Act 2009 that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged group.

·         The Court’s majority held that the Act shall apply to (a) government controlled schools, (b) aided schools (including minority administered schools), and (c) unaided non-minority schools.

·          The Court ruled that Article 21A makes it obligatory on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age. However, the manner in which the obligation shall be discharged is left to the State to determine by law.