Home Public Interest Litigation Difference between PIL and writ

Difference between PIL and writ

September 25, 2023

3729

This article is written by Prithviraj Dutta, a student at Amity University Kolkata. This article aims to understand the difference between PILs and Writs by understanding the conceptual difference between the two, their origins, the process of filing, their applicability, and their significance. Furthermore, this article also discusses some Landmark Judgments related to PILs and Writs and some recent case laws.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

It is essential for every nation to protect the interests of its citizens. Writ petitions and Public Interest Litigation are two essential remedies that are available in India to enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens in order to seek justice from the Courts. The Supreme Court and the High Courts of India are the protectors of the rights that have been granted by the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India provides for writ petitions that give every citizen the right to seek constitutional remedies from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution- respectively. It is an instrument or an order through which the Supreme Court and the High Courts direct or abstain from directing an individual or an authority from performing a certain act. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have numerous powers for issuing the writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, and Certiorari for enforcing the rights granted by the Constitution. If it deems it essential, the Court can even proceed suo moto based on information received from sources like the media. Public Interest Litigation, also known as PIL, is another mechanism through which citizens can seek justice on behalf of a particular group or section of society by filing a petition before the Supreme Court or High Court. The main purpose of PILs is to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights of every citizen, irrespective of socio-economic status.

Meaning

PIL

PIL Litigation or legal action that is filed before a court of law for the protection of “public interest” is known as Public Interest Litigation. Public Interest Litigation has not been defined in an act or statute. It is left to the judges to interpret a situation as a matter of public interest or an issue that affects the public at large. Situations where the common public interest is harmed or affected in some way can be recovered by filing a PIL in any court of law. The meaning of Public Interest Litigation is quite large, encompassing numerous issues including corruption, human rights violations, protection of the environment, consumer protection, public health, terrorism, road safety, etc. PIL today has weakened the concept of locus standi, which implies that only a person or party whose rights have been violated can file a petition for enforcement of their rights.

Objective of PIL

The main objective of PIL is to make justice easily accessible to the marginalised sections of society. PILs are for people who are not in a financial situation to hire a lawyer or approach a court of law to seek justice.
Another objective of PIL is to provide a platform for citizens to engage in issues important to them and to be more included in our legal system. PILs help to create awareness among the public about their rights.
The legislature and the executive find it useful to impose legal obligations.

Types of PIL

Representative Social Action

Representative Social Action is a form of Public Interest Litigation in which any person in the public seeks judicial redress for a legal wrong committed to a person or a group of people who are unable to approach the judicial system due to being in a socially or economically disadvantageous position. In these kinds of cases, the petitioner is accorded locus standi to seek judicial remedy on behalf of another person or class.

One such case is Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1979).

Facts

1. Sunil Batra who was the prisoner and convicted of death sentence living in the Tihar Jail, filed a letter to the Supreme Court judge in relation to the treatment he was subjected to by the jail authorities

2. He stated that he was tortured and assaulted by the jail authorities, as a result of which he suffered a serious anal injury. He stated that all of these were done in order to extract money from his relatives.

3. This letter was revised into a Habeas Corpus petition and later refined into a Public Interest Litigation.

4. The Supreme Court appointed DR YS Chintal and Shri Mukul Mudgai as Amicus Curiae, who, after visiting the prison, stated that the petitioner had sustained serious anal injury because of a rod.

Issues

Whether the Supreme Court could entertain a petition by a convict.
Whether the convicted person enjoyed fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether Section 56 and Section 30(2) of the THE PRISONS ACT, 1894 (Act IX of 1894) were violative of the Constitution of India.
Questions related to amendments in the Prisons Act of 1984.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the jail authorities did not have any authority to torture the prisoners without the Court’s permission.
The Fundamental Rights of the petitioner were infringed in this case.
Whenever the fundamental rights of an individual were violated, they could approach the Supreme Court and the High Court under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively.
The Court held that Section 30(2) of the Prisoners Act contained of no provision for torturing prisoners.
The Court held that even convicted people had the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
The Court held that Section 30(2) of the Prisoners Act was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
With the order of the court, the Supreme Court could take necessary actions in relation to Section 56 of the Prisoners Act of 1894.

Citizen Social Action

A Public Interest Litigation falls under this category when it is filed by a person as a member of the public rather than as a class representative. This category of PIL aims not to make justice more accessible, like Representative Social Action, but to liberate those rights that are diffused among the public to be enforced. This is notwithstanding the absence of traditional human rights. This is notwithstanding the absence of traditional human rights.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union Of India (1986), it was observed that –

Facts

When a matchstick was thrown in a river in 1985 in Haridwar, it caused havoc, causing the river to catch fire for more than 30 hours. Many reports refer to this case as the “Ganga Pollution Case”.
The fire resulted from the release of toxic chemicals from a pharmaceutical firm into the river.
M.C. Mehta filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of India as a response to this incident.
The PIL had named around 89 respondents. He stated that more steps had to be taken to protect the River Ganga from environmental pollution despite advancements in environmental law. He narrowed down his focus to Kanpur, although he was not a citizen of Kanpur.
M.C Mehta called upon the state agencies to prevent tanneries and the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur from dumping affluents into the river. This was until they implemented treatment plants to address pollution, especially cyanogenic effluents.
He also requested the court to order leather tanneries to stop releasing effluents into the river.

Issues

Whether the authorities recognised the deteriorating condition of the river, and conductedt an investigation into the matter.
What was the course of action that needed to be taken by the state in response to the situation.
Whether the smaller industries should receive help in order to successfully implement effluent plants.

Judgment

The Court, in its Judgment, highlighted the need to protect the environment as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They put special emphasis on Article 48A and Article 51A .
The Court recognised and put focus on The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, (1974), which aims to maintain the quality of water and prevent pollution. Section 24 of this Act prevents the disposal of polluting matter into streams that also include watercourses.
Tanneries were required to establish primary or secondary treatment plants as minimum requirements
The financial capacity of the tanneries was considered insignificant with respect to their obligations.
The State Boards were also criticised for not taking effective measures to prevent the release of effluents into the Ganga river and for the Central government not addressing the nuances.
Article 52A(g) imposes a fundamental duty to protect the environment.
The Central Government was made to mandate environmental education. Education should focus on environmental protection.

Writ

A Writ is defined as a formal, legal document that orders or ceases a person or an authority from performing a certain action or deed. Writs are written orders given by either the Supreme Court or the High Court as constitutional remedies for citizens against violations of their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, under Article 32, and the High Court under Article 226 grants the power to issue writs.

Types of writs

Habeas Corpus

The writ of Habeas Corpus provides protection against unlawful detention by the state or private authority. The Court cannot issue the writ of Habeas Corpus in two particular cases-:

When the court itself orders the detention
Detention is lawful.

Mandamus

The writ of Mandamus is an order given by the courts to various executive authorities, directing them to perform actions to safeguard and protect the people’s fundamental rights.. A writ of Mandamus can be issued against a tribunal, corporation, public body, or lower court. In certain situations, the writ of Mandamus cannot be applied. These are:

Against any private individual or a private organisation.
To enforce departmental instructions not backed by statutes.
Against the constitutional office of the President or Governor.

Prohibition

The writ of prohibition is used by a higher court to order a lower court or tribunal not to do an act that does not fall within its jurisdiction. The important thing to note here is that a writ of prohibition can only be passed against a lower court or a tribunal.

Certiorari

The writ of certiorari is an order by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to transfer matters pending before them. It can also be used to quash orders in certain cases when a lower court has issued them.

The important scenarios in which a writ of Certiorari can be granted by the Higher Courts are cases against administrative authorities affecting the fundamental rights of the people. It however, cannot be issued against law-making bodies, private organisations, or individuals.

Quo-Warranto

The writ of Quo-Warranto is used by the higher courts to ensure that no person can hold a public office to which he is not entitled. Writs of Quo-Warranto are issued by the higher courts to prevent violations of the fundamental rights of the people against people who usurp public offices illegally. The important scenarios to keep in mind while issuing a writ of Quo-Warranto are-

It can only be issued when a body is created by a statute or under the Indian Constitution
A writ of Quo-Warranto cannot be issued against a ministerial office.

Origin

PIL

The seeds of Public Interest Litigation were sown for the first time in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs M/S Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, (1976), and were initiated in Railway. A group of unregistered associations of workers successfully issued a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The concept of Public Interest Litigation was introduced for the first time in India through the Hussainara Khatoon Case

Hussainara Katoon And Others V Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1979)

Facts

In Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, (1979) The Indian Express published an article in 1979 stating the situation of the under-trial prisoners in Bihar Jail. Many of these prisoners were kept in jails for a very long time, even longer than what the courts had ordered.

Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani filed a case of Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court. She is known as the “Mother of Public Interest Litigation in India,” as this is the first documented case of Public Interest Litigation in India

A writ of Habeas Corpus was brought by Kapil Hingoani before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. This was for the purpose of the release of 17 under-trial prisoners after separating them into two categories:

Minor offences
Serious Offences

Issues

Whether the right to speedy trial be included under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the law could compel the provision of free legal assistance.

Arguments

Many of the under-trial prisoners who were presented before the Magistrate were constantly sent to judicial custody.
However, these allegations were acceptable by the Court. This is because there was a failure to comply with the requirements of showing on which dates the under-trial prisoners were detained.
In order to excuse the pending cases, in almost 10 percent of the cases, the detention was due to the absence of expert opinions.

Judgment

The Supreme Court ordered that all those under-trial prisoners who were a part of Advocate Kapil Hingorani’s list were to be released because they had already served sentences that were more than the maximum punishment for the crimes for which they were accused.
The Court also stated that under-trial prisoners for bailable offences, when brought before the magistrate, will be appointed with a Lawyer by the State Government at its own expense in order to file a bail application. This was to allow a speedy trial to begin and limit remand.
The State Governments and High Courts were required to provide information on the locations of the Magistrate and Sessions Courts in Bihar. They were also to submit the number of pending cases in each court. This was to be done before December 31, 1978.

After this case, Public Interest Litigation became a very powerful tool. It helped citizens directly address their grievances by approaching the Court. The filing of a PIL case has been made easier by the Supreme Court. It has made justice more accessible to the people, as even the people whose rights have not been directly affected can approach the Court on behalf of an individual or a party, keeping in mind the “public interest” at large.

Writ

Prerogative Writs in India owe their origins to the English Common Law. In England, they are called “fountains of justice” because they were issued as an exercise of the King’s prerogative as the “foundations of justice”. The High Court later started issuing these to protect the liberties and rights of the British People.
Writs in India owe their origin to the Regulating Act of 1773. Under this Act, the Supreme Court was established in Calcutta. The High Court, coming under the Supreme Court, was also given the authority to issue writs. The writ jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the High Court was limited to their original civil jurisdiction, which was granted to them by Sections 45 Specific Relief Act, (1877)
Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights and also subject administrative actions to judicial review. This is a constitutional remedy available to a person in the event that his fundamental rights have been violated by any administrative action. The Supreme Court and the High Court can only exercise their jurisdiction by issuing writs. The Supreme Court has been granted this power under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the High Courts have been granted this power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
There is a difference between a writ and order. Writs are used to provide extraordinary remedy, usually against administrative action, while an order can be passed in any matter.

Applicability

Who can file a PIL?

Any citizen under Article 32, Article 226 or Section 133 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, (1973) (in cases where public nuisance harms public interest) can file a PIL in the Supreme Court, High Court, or Magistrates Court, respectively.
As the letter is addressed by a person in the interest of the public, an aggrieved party, a social action group for enforcement of legal or constitutional rights, or a person who is unable to approach Congress for redress, it is necessary that the court be satisfied that the writ petition fulfils certain basic requirements for the filing of a PIL.
A Public Interest lawsuit can only be brought against the central government, state government, or municipal authority. It cannot be brought against any individual. The Parliament, the Government of India, and the Government and legislature of each state are included in the definition of “State” under Article 12.

The matters in which a PIL can be filed are as follows-

Violation of fundamental rights
Violation of human rights of the poor and marginalised sections of society
In order to force the municipal authorities to perform a particular duty
Execution of Central and State Government policies.

The matters in which a PIL cannot be filed are as follows-

Matters between Landlords and Tenants
Service Matters
Pension and Gratuity Matters
Complaints against the central and state governments and also local bodies except those relating to 1-10 mentioned in the list of guidelines
Admissions related to medical as well as other educational institutions
Petitions that are pending before the High Court and Subordinate Courts.

Who can file a Writ?

Who can file an application seeking remedy through the writ of Habeas Corpus?

An application for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued by any person who has been detained or by any other person, like parents, spouses, or even close friends, on his behalf. This is subject to the rules as laid down by the different High Courts.

In Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union Of India And Others, (1950) the Supreme Court stated that any person who has been illegally detained can file a writ of habeas corpus, or it can also be filed by any other person provided that the person is not a total stranger to the person who has been detained.

Who can file an application seeking remedy through the Writ of Mandamus?

In a writ of Mandamus, a person has to prove that he has a legal right so as to overpower the opposite party against whom the writ has been issued to perform or not to perform a certain act. A prerequisite for issuing the writ of Mandamus is the existence of a legal right of the petitioner. The legal right must be enforceable and protected before a claim for Mandamus can be made. The existence of this legal right gives the foundation for a writ of Mandamus.

In Dr. Umakant Saran v. State Of Bihar, (1972)., Dr. Saran challenged the decision of the High Court through a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court of India. After determining the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed that Dr. Saran was not eligible for appointment at the time the High Court announced its decision. Two other respondents (5 and 6) in this particular case were eligible for the appointment. The Court stated that the writ of Mandamus can only be granted when the authorities are at fault for committing a particular wrong. It is necessary to prove that the statute provided some legal right to the person that had not been enforced. Thus, a petition for the writ of Mandamus was rejected in this case.

Who can file an application seeking remedy through the Writ of Prohibition?

The grounds on which a writ of prohibition can be issued are as follows –

When there is a lack or excess of jurisdiction
In cases where the principles of Natural Justice have not been adhered to or have been violated
Whenever a court or a tribunal proceeds to do an act under a law or a statute that is unconstitutional or ultra-vires.
Where an impugned action violates the fundamental right of an individual.

In Shewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd v. The Collector Of Customs & Others, (1985), it was stated in the Judgment that from time to time by notification in the official gazette, restrict the import or the import of certain goods by land or sea across any customs frontier which had been declared by the Central Government. The High Court could use the writ of prohibition, prohibiting the customs authorities from giving invalid conditions without consultation with the central government.

Who can file an application seeking remedy through the Writ of Certiorari?

The grounds on which a writ of Prohibition can be issued are as follows-

When there is a lack or excess of jurisdiction
In cases where the principles of Natural Justice have not been adhered to or have been violated
When there is an evident ignorance of the provisions of the law or the law has been interpreted in the wrong way..

The Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. Standard Brands Limited , (2006) stated that-

The technicalities of prerogative writs in English Law have no role to play in Indian Constitutional Law.
A writ of Certiorari can only be passed by a superior authority against an inferior authority to certify its record for examination.
A High Court cannot pass a writ of Certiorari against another High Court, or one bench of a High Court cannot pass a writ of Certiorari against another bench of the same court.
Judicial orders given by a civil court cannot be amended or reversed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Who can file an application seeking remedy through the Writ of Quo-Warranto?

The grounds on which a writ of Quo-Warranto can be issued are as follows

Only if the office in question is a public office can any person who claims a remedy through this writ establish this first.
The office in question must be substantive
A contravention of the Constitution or statutory provision has been made while appointing such a person to office

In The University Of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr, (1963), The respondent argued that the appointment of Appellant number 2 was illegal as he failed to fulfil the first condition as specified in the advertised inviting application. The High Court issued a writ of Quo-Warranto against Anniah Gowda, stating that his appointment was illegal.

However, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court was incorrect in its Judgment because it did not take into consideration the alternative qualifications that Anniah Gowda possessed.

Laws governing

PIL – PILs can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In addition to this, a letter or a postcard can be written to the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of any High Court, and this letter or postcard can be converted into a PIL, as was done in the case of Rural Litigation And Entitlement v. State Of U.P. & Ors, (1985) .

Laws Governing PILs in India

Relaxed Rule of Locus Standi

PILs can be filed by another person for safeguarding and protecting the interests of the disadvantaged sections of society. Thus the relaxed Rule of Locus Standi is followed here since a person whose legal rights have not directly been affected can also file a PIL to protect the interest of the poor and marginalised sections of society.

Relaxed Procedural Rules

A letter or a postcard sent to either the Chief Justice of India or to the Chief Justice of any of the High Courts can be converted into a PIL. This was done in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V State of U.P and Others, 1985, where the Court converted a letter into a PIL related to illegal mining in Mussoorie Hills.

Intervention by the Courts

Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution provide for a reasonable trial for all. Thus, the Courts can intervene in cases where injustice is done to a large number of people.

Question of Maintainability

The Government cannot raise questions related to the maintainability of a PIL when the Court is prima facie satisfied that there has been a violation of the fundamental rights of a disadvantaged group of society.

Principle of Res Judicata

The principle of Res Judicata can be applied depending on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the PIL.

Appointment of a Commission

In certain cases, the Courts can appoint a Commission or other bodies to investigate a particular case. In such a case, the Court takes over the Public Institution and manages it.

PILs related to the constitutional validity of a statute

In normal circumstances, the High Courts do not entertain such a petition through PILs.

Complete Justice

The Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, has the discretionary power to pass an order or a decree that might be necessary to give complete justice between the parties where the law or statute involved does not provide a remedy. The Court can make decisions to end the dispute between the parties in relation to the facts of the case.

Misuse of PILs

The Courts have to be extremely cautious to ensure that PILs are not misused. The courts have from time to time put emphasis on this fact, as stated in Kushum Lata v. Union Of India And Ors, (2006). The Court, however, also states that if a person files a PIL for the protection of his own private interests, the court can, if it finds it necessary, treat the matter as one of public interest.

Formulation and Evolution of various concepts

In many environmental cases, the Court has come up with and evolved various concepts such as the Polluter Pays Principle, the Public Trust Doctrine, and Sustainable Development.

Laws governing Writs

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Article 32 of the Constitution states that any individual whose fundamental rights have been violated can approach the Supreme Court to seek a constitutional remedy. Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution of India.

Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution states that any person whose fundamental rights have been violated under Part-III of the Constitution can move the court through appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights.
Article 32(2) states that the Supreme Court has the power to issue the five writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto depending on the particular case and whichever might be required for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 32(3) states that the Supreme Court, through its above-mentioned powers, can empower any court to exercise the power to issue writs within its local jurisdiction.
Article 32(4) states that the rights that have been guaranteed by this Article cannot be suspended except when stated by the Constitution.

Nature and Scope of Article 32 of the Constitution

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is mandatory and not discretionary. The Scope of Article 32 of the Constitution is limited in comparison to Article 226 of the Constitution. This is because the Supreme Court cannot be approached for any other legal right except fundamental rights. A noteworthy feature of Article 32 of the Constitution is that the powers of the Supreme Court under this Article are mentioned separately from the articles that cover the Supreme Court’s general jurisdiction – Articles 124-147. However, during a National Emergency when the Fundamental Rights are suspended, Article 32 remains suspended as well.

When can the Supreme Court refuse a remedy?

The cases in which the Supreme Court can refuse remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution are as follows-

Res Judicata – Res Judicata is applicable to a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ of Habeas Corpus is an exception to that principle; however, a writ of petition cannot be filed with the same facts more than once. Habeas Corpus as an expedition to this principle was mentioned in the case of Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, (1961).
An Inordinate delay in filing the petition – The Supreme Court can refuse to grant relief when there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. This was stated in the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State Of Kerala, (2007).
Malicious Petition – If a petition is found to be malicious and ill-intentioned, then the Supreme Court can refuse remedy. The Supreme Court, due to the absence of rational grounds, rejected the writ petition in Shoukat Hussain Guru v. State (Nct) Delhi & Anr on 14 May,( 2008).
Alternate Remedy – If the petitioner has another alternative available, he should pursue that rather than filing a writ petition. In the State Of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S, (2008).
Misrepresentation of facts – If the petitioner has been found to have committed a substantial misrepresentation of facts, then the Supreme Court can reject the writ petition at any stage.
In the case of Shri K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, (2021), the Supreme Court stated that the concealment of key information falls under misuse of the legal process, preventing the appellant from getting relief from the Writ Courts.

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

Article 226 of the Constitution states that any individual whose fundamental rights have been violated can approach the High Court to seek a constitutional remedy. Article 32 is the “heart and soul” of the Constitution of India.

Article 226(1) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs notwithstanding anything in Article 32 throughout the area where they are allowed to exercise their jurisdiction over any person or authority, and they can also direct the Government to issue writs or orders. This includes the power to issue the 5 writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto for the enforcement of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose.
Article 226(2) states that the powers stated above can be used by the High Court for exercising powers in their areas of jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or partly arises, notwithstanding that the seat of the government or authority or the residence of the person does not fall in those territories.
Article 226(3) states that in cases where an interim order is passed against the respondent under Article 226 without

Providing the respondent a copy of the petition
The respondent has to be given an opportunity to be heard

The High Court shall decide within two weeks of getting the application or within two weeks from when the other party received the application, whichever is later. In a situation where the application is not disposed of, the interim order has to be vacated on the expiration of that period. If the High Court is closed on the last day of this period, then before the expiration of the last date on which the High Court is open, the interim order will have to be vacated.

Article 226(4) states that the powers given to the High Court under this Article shall not prevent the Supreme Court from exercising its powers under Article 32(2) of the Constitution.

Scope of Article 226 of the Constitution

The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has a much broader scope as it gives the High Court the power to issue orders, directions, and writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for the enforcement of legal rights as well. This was stated in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union Of India & Others, (1983).
Writs under Article 226 of the Constitution enable the High Courts to issue writs in cases where a subordinate body or an officer acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, in cases where they violate the principles of Natural Justice, or when they don’t exercise jurisdiction in cases where they are supposed to. This also applies where there is an omission related to an act, omission, or error that has resulted in an absence or an excess of jurisdiction that leads to injustice. The High Court cannot turn itself into a Court of Appeal, evaluate the accuracy of its contested decisions, and determine what order to issue. This was stated in the case of Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. And Others, (1952).
The High Court cannot sit or function as an appellate authority under Article 226. The authority of the High Court is supervisory. The key goal of this jurisdiction is to keep the government, as well as some courts and agencies, under the supervision of the High Courts. The High Court also has to ensure that it does not go beyond its own jurisdiction. This was stated in the case of Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, (1995).
If the High Court finds out that there are facts in the case that are not relevant to a high prerogative writ, it can refuse to entertain certain matters and shift it to the normal litigation process. This was stated in Jagdish Prasad Shastri v. State Of U.P. & Ors, (1970).
The Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union Of India, (2018), the Supreme Court stated that the High Court can issue relief both for the enforcement of fundamental rights and also for other reasons that might include enforcement of public responsibilities by the public authorities.

Process of filing

PIL

Documents required to file a PIL

A list of the names and addresses of the aggrieved parties.
A list of names and addresses of the respondents or the government agencies from whom relief is sought by the petitioner.
The facts of the case or the violation of fundamental rights of the people concerned.
The nature of the violation of the injury
Any personal interest that the petitioner might have.
The petitioner also has to inform the court if they are in a position to pay the court fees if the court requires them to do so.

The Process of Filing a PIL

The Petitioner needs to do complete research on the issue before filing a PIL. In a case where the PIL is related to a large number of individuals or a group, the petitioner has to consult all the individuals and the group concerned.
A person can argue or appoint a lawyer on his behalf to argue his case.
If a person wants to file a PIL in the High Court, he has to submit two copies of his petition to the High Court. Along with this, a copy of his petition has to be sent in advance to the respondent. The proof of serving a copy of the writ needs to be affixed to the petition
If a person wants to file a PIL before the Supreme Court, he has to send five copies of it. The respondent is served with a copy only when it is issued by the Court.

The Cost incurred to file a PIL

A Public Interest Litigation is cheaper in comparison to other cases. A person has to pay a court fee of Rs. 50 for each respondent and affix it to the petition.

How often do judges admit a PIL?

It varies from Judge to Judge. PILs are looked into by the Chief Justice of the Courts; therefore, it depends on the sitting judge in the matter. The average admission rate varies from 30 to 60 percent. If the judges are convinced that the matter is of significant public interest, then they admit the PIL.

Writ

The process of filing a writ petition before the High Court

It is essential that a writ petition must contain a supporting affidavit, the facts of the case, and the question of law. The documents on which the petitioner relies to substantiate his case have to be present as well. A notice of motion has to be sent to the other party along with the Prayer.
The Petition has to be filed at a filing counter in the High Court
Usually, before issuing a notice to the other party, the Court first hears the petitioner’s side of the case in a preliminary hearing.
If the Court finds that there is no relevant ground for the petitioner to seek the writ, they can reject the petition at the first hearing itself.
However, if the case is admitted by the Court, then a notice is sent to the other party based on the motion for notice specified in the petition. The notice also mentions the date on which the other party has to appear for the hearing. Admission of a petition does not mean that relief will be paid. It just means that the Court finds sufficient grounds for hearing the case. The petition even after admission can be rejected at any time by the Court.
The Court fees are subjective and alternative forms of dispute redressal are always available in case the Petitioner is unable to appoint a lawyer
In the final stage, the Court hears the arguments of both parties. After this, the Court comes up with a decision that it deems fit.

The process of filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court

Under Article 32 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court for protection of their fundamental rights. This petition shall be in writing.
If the petition involves a substantial question of law, then it will not be heard by a Division Bench of less than five Judges. If, however, a substantial question of law is absent, then the petition can be heard by a bench of less than five judges.
All the interlocutory and miscellaneous applications that are filed along with the writ petition can be heard and decided by a Division Bench of less than five Judges.
No Court fees are imposed when the writ petition is for Habeas Corpus or any other petition that arises out of criminal proceedings.

Procedure to file a writ of Habeas Corpus

A writ petition of Habeas Corpus needs to be accompanied by an affidavit of the person stating that the petition has been made at his instance, and it also needs to state the reason for restraint. If the person is unable to make an affidavit, then the affidavit is made on behalf of another person who is acquainted with the facts of the case, stating the reasons why the person detained was unable to file the petition.
The Petitioner also needs to state whether he had applied for the same relief before the High Court and, if so, what the result of the High Court hearings was.
During preliminary hearings, the petitioner needs to be present before the court, and if the court makes a prima facie case for granting the petition, then the Court has to issue a rule NISI, ordering the opposite party to be present on the next date of hearing. The opposite party also has to state why an order should not be passed against them, and the person detained also needs to be present before the court of law.
If no cause is shown by the opposite party on the set date, then the court must pass an order for the release of the petitioner.

Procedure for filing the other four writs or any order of direction

The writs have to be set out, stating the name and description of the petitioner, the nature of the fundamental rights that have been infringed, and the relief sought, along with an affidavit of the petitioner verifying the facts of the case.
A minimum of three copies of this must be filed in the registry.
The Petitioner also has to state whether he moved to the concerned High Court for a grant of relief before approaching the Supreme Court and what the result was.
The Petitioner must be present before the court on the date of the petition for a preliminary hearing and also send a notice to the opposite party. If the court finds that there is no infringement of any fundamental rights or reasonable grounds for rejection of the petition, the court shall reject the petition. If any reasonable ground is found, however, the court may issue the rule of NISI calling the respondent to appear on the next date.
The respondent must reply to this within 30 days of getting the receipt or before 2 weeks of the next date appointed for the hearing,whichever is earlier, or at any time specified by the Court.
Through issuing the Rule of NISI, the Court has the power to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioner in order to grant him justice if it seems fit.

Significance

PIL

Significance of PIL

The mechanism of PIL helps and empowers every citizen to exercise their rights and obtain justice in case any of their rights have been violated.
India follows the concept of participatory democracy. By filing petitions before the courts, citizens take part in the administration of justice. Also, the filing of a PIL costs much less than the standard process.
PIL supports the protection of rights of a section, community, or group of people in comparable situations. In the case of Samatha v. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors, (1997), the Supreme Court prohibited private corporations from leasing tribal and forest lands to others.
The process of administering justice becomes more democratic by allowing any person or group with the necessary resources to file a PIL on behalf of those who lack the means or are unable to do so. In the case of Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union Of India & Ors, (1989), a citizen named Parmanand Katara brought up the case where a hospital refused to treat victims of an accident.
Through the mechanism of judicial review, the decisions given by public authorities cannot be contested. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. U.O.I, (2015), the Supreme Court overturned arrests made undeSection 66 in The Information Technology Act, (2000) related to the publication of content online.
PIL helps in creating a check and balance to prevent any legislative or executive authority from misusing their powers and creating accountability, and it can be used to enforce a wrongdoer’s legal responsibility.
Litigants can concentrate and get results in matters related to societal issues.
It helps the Judiciary keep an eye on institutions for the elderly, orphanages, and prisons.

Writ

Significance of Writs

Writs play an extremely crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights of an individual. Without writs, Part III of the Constitution would be meaningless.
The Indian Constitution’s Articles 32 and 226 guarantee the basic rights of an individual by giving the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India the power to issue writs in cases where the fundamental rights of an individual have been violated.
Today, writ jurisdiction has established itself in the Common Law to keep a check on administrative operations and actions. It ensures that people are treated fairly in the justice system and that the entire administration is free of bias.
Writs help in establishing areas for the Judiciary to exercise its power, authority, and jurisdiction over the State’s Administrative acts.
Writs provide the individuals with an opportunity to challenge government actions and seek relief in cases where there has been a violation of their fundamental rights. They promote the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability.
“Social and Economic Justice” form the hallmark of the Indian Constitution. Writs protect the basic rights of an individual, which cannot be violated in ordinary circumstances.

Differences between PIL and Writs

PIL	WRITS
PIL is an application filed by a citizen for protection of the rights of the public at large or where “public interests” are concerned.	Writs are always filed by an individual or an organisation for their own benefit
The process of filing a PIL is simplified and inexpensive.	The process of filing a writ is expensive, time-consuming, and complicated as well.
Rule of Locus Standi is relaxed.	Rule of Locus Standi is followed.
Examining evidence is narrow and does not involve as many technicalities as writs.	Evidence is strictly examined.
The Judgments given in cases of PIL are extremely crucial as the matters involve the interest of the public at large and concern matters of national welfare.	The Judgments are related to matters of private interest.
PILs are not governed by any statute. It is an application filed by a citizen for protection of the rights of the public at large or where “public interests” are concerned.	Writs have been specifically mentioned in the Constitution under Articles 32 (Power of Supreme Court to issue writs) and 226 (Power of the High Courts to issue writs) of the Constitution.

Landmark Judgments

PIL

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP And Others, (1985)

Rural Litigation And Entitlement v. State Of U.P. & Ors, (1985) was the first case of environmental PIL in India. In this case, a fierce legal battle was fought between the residents who were affected on one side and some rich limestone contractors, powerful individuals, and even the government on the other. This case brought into focus the contrast between development and conservation. Numerous issues were raised before the Court.

Facts

The Doon Valley is included in the Mussoorie Hill Chain. The Doon Valley consisted of a lot of resources. The region’s natural flourishing was completed by the numerous rivers that originated in the Mussoorie Hills. In 1950, limestone mining here resulted in degradation. This was due to use of resources like tree cutting and severe mining.
Between 1955-1965 the Doon Valley’s limestone mining methods continued to grow. Detonation was used as a method to remove minerals, which resulted in the loss of flora in the country. Water Shortages, mudslides, flooding, extreme heat, and dissemination had resulted in severe degradation of the valley.
Mining was outlawed in the state by the Uttar Pradesh State Department of Mines. In 1962, however, the state legislature approved mining operations for a period of 20 years. The contracts were available for restoration in 1982, but the state banned them. The mining firms filed a petition in the Supreme Court to get the government’s decision overturned. The Allahabad High Court approved mining operations, and favoured economic gains rather than environmental concerns.
In 1923, a regional Dehradun NGO, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, filed a letter of protest to the Supreme Court against India’s environmental poverty. The Supreme Court then ordered an evaluation of all mining operations in the valley.

Issues

Whether the mining operations violate the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.
Whether there any evidence of the mining operations damaging the ecosystem in the area.
Whether it is true that these queries resulted in permanent water springs?

Judgment

The Supreme Court ordered the closure of all the polluting units. The Supreme Court also set a precedent in this particular case by allowing residents to file a case against polluting units irrespective of whether it was complying with or violating provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, (1981).
The Mine Lesses, whose operations were halted were to be given first preference in mining regions.
The Environmental Eco-Task force was ordered to recover the areas that were damaged by the mines and the employers whose work was shut down due to mining being stopped were to be given first preference in employment choices

In this case, the Supreme Court had acted immediately by prohibiting mining operations with a view of determining if the mining operations were going on taking safety standards into consideration. The Bhargava Committee was appointed in order to assess the area’s ecology. On receiving certain recommendations from the Bhargava Committee, the mining operations were stopped in ecologically sensitive areas. Importantly, the Court also noted that citizens have a responsibility to protect the environment.

Vishaka And Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Facts

In Vishaka & Ors v. State Of Rajasthan, (1997) Bhanwari Devi from Bhateri, Rajasthan, started working under the Women’s Development Project run by the Rajasthan Government in 1985.
In 1992, Bhanwari took up the government’s campaign against child marriage. Ram Gujar had decided to conduct the marriage of his infant daughter. Bhanwari Devi attempted to convince the family to stop the marriage. However, the marriage took place.
The sub-divisional officer and the Superintendent of Police were successful in stopping the marriage. The marriage, however, was conducted the next day. Bhanwari Devi was considered responsible for the police actions.
On September 22, 1992, in order to seek revenge, four men from the Gujjar family attacked Bhanwari Devi’s husband and brutally gang raped her.
The police had used unconstitutional methods to prevent her from filing the complaint as well as to delay the medical examination, which was deferred for 52 hours, and as a result, no evidence of rape was mentioned in the report.
After facing taunts and having to leave her lehenga as evidence, Bhanwari Devi was forced to leave the police station, only having her husband’s dhoti to cover her body
‘Vishaka’ a women’s rights organisation, filed a PIL focusing on enforcing fundamental rights of women in the workplace under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Issues

Whether formal guidelines are required to deal with the incidents involving sexual harassment at the workplace.
Whether sexual harassment at the workplace amount to violating fundamental rights of a woman at the workplace.
Whether the employer has any responsibility in case there is a sexual harassment of its employee at the workplace.

Judgment

Sexual Harassment at the workplace was considered as a clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Guidelines were directed towards employees

A definition of sexual harassment was provided.
List of steps was given for preventing harassment.
and a clear description of procedures was given that were to be strictly followed in all workplaces to ensure gender equality.

This case promoted women’s rights in a broader sense and applied international laws at the High Court Level.

Writ

A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, (1950).

Facts

A.K. Gopalan v. The State Of Madras, (1950) is a case about AK Gopalan, a communist leader, was subjected to illegal detention several times since 1947, and even after the court let him go, he was kept under detention by the government under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. Therefore, he filed a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the writ of Habeas Corpus. His main argument was that the Preventive Detention Act curtailed his liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. His contention was that Article 21 included the principles of natural justice in addition to being an enacted law.

Issues

Whether the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution is same as due process of law.

Judgment

The Judgment in this case was given by six judges with a 5:1 majority. The court rejected AK Gopalan’s arguments. The Court stated that personal liberty means freedom from the physical body and nothing beyond that. The Court, therefore, restricted the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court restricted the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution as well. The court stated that only a free man could enjoy freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution are not related to each other. Article 21 provides protection against loss of personal liberty, while Article 19 provides protection against unreasonable restrictions. The Court, in its Judgment, made it clear that the “procedure established by the law” and the “due process of law” are different.
Only Justice Faizal did not favour this Judgment. He was of the opinion that detaining someone without valid reasons was illegal

After many years, in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India, (1978), the Supreme Court overruled the Judgment given in this case and deemed Justice Faizal’s opinion to be correct. The Supreme Court also widened the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution.

S.P. Gupta v. President of India, (1981).

Facts

In S.P. Gupta v. President Of India, (1981), the petitioner challenged the circular letter that had been addressed by the Law Minister of the Government of India to all States except North-East States. This letter stated that the Chief Ministers had to obtain consent before the Additional Judges in the High Court could be appointed as Permanent Judges in the High Court of another state.
The petitioner here contended that this was a direct attack on the independence of the Judiciary and therefore challenged the constitutional validity of this letter. Two groups of petitions were filed.
A petition using writ of Mandamus was filed to move against the state

Issues

Whether the petitioner had locus standi in the matter though his legal rights had been violated.
As to had the final say in the appointment of judges.
Whether the independence of the Judiciary was affected by this circular letter.
Whether the non-extension of Additional Judge Mr S.N Kumar was considered valid.

Judgment

The non-extension of the additional judge, SN. Kumar, was considered valid.
Justice Bhagwati recommended a Collegium that would recommend the names of the candidates to the President for appointment as Judges in the High Court and Supreme Court.
Justices Pathak and Tulzapukar stated that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India was to be given validity over anyone else’s.

T.C. Basappa v. T.Nagappa And Another (1954)

In T. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa And Another, (1954), the Supreme Court iexamined the writ of Certiorari in the Indian context. The Court, in this case, stated that it does not substitute the Judgment of a lower court by the use of this writ but rather examines the jurisdiction of the tribunal below as well as observes the qualifying conditions in the course of such a Judgment being issued. The scope and all the limitations of the writ were formulated in this Judgment.

University of Mysore v. C.D. Govind Rao (1965)

In University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao,(1965), the Supreme Court stated that the writ of Quo-Warranto can only be issued against an office of substantive nature. The petition in this case was against the appointment of a Research Reader in English by the University of Madras. The court stated that while filing such a petition, the Court has to be convinced that the office in question is in all cases a public office and that it is held by a person who does not have the legal authority to do so. In such cases, a person can file for the writ of Quo-Warranto

S. Govinda Menon v. The Union of India (1967)

In S. Govinda Menon v. The Union Of India, (1967), the Supreme Court stated that the writ of Prohibition can be filed when there is both the presence and absence of jurisdiction by a lower court. The High Court stated that this writ is mainly used by the Higher Courts to keep the lower courts within their jurisdiction.

Recent cases

PIL

S.P.V Paul Raj v. Chief Electoral Officer (2021)

In S.P.V. Paul Raj v. Chief Electoral Officer, (2021), the PIL that had been filed was dismissed.

The Petitioner prayed the High Court to apply its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of Mandamus. This was to direct a writ of Mandamus to conduct compulsory tests of the candidates contesting the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections that were in process at that time.
This was in order to protect 6,29,43,512 voters from being infected with COVID-19
The court held that there were no grounds to file a PIL in this case and that it was Frivolous. The petitioner was asked to be more alert while filing such a petition. The suit was dismissed and the petitioner was barred from filing a PIL for a period of one year without taking prior leave of the Bench.

Lalit Valecha v. Union Of India And Others (2021)

In Lalit Valecha v. Union Of India & Ors, (2021), a PIL was filed in the Delhi High Court directing TV and New Channels to follow the code and ethics while they report content that is sensitive matters in funding those which are related to mass deaths and sufferings. The reason given was to curb the spread of negativity by restraining news channels from broadcasting such news. The petitioner argued that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution was not absolute.

The petition was dismissed on the grounds that reporting the number of deaths was not spreading negativity.

Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority (2021)

In Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, (2021), a petition was originally filed before the Delhi Court and was later transferred by the Supreme Court to itself. A challenge to the possibility of the Central Vista Project and the methods by which clearances were obtained for the use of the environment, heritage, and land was petitioned in this case.

The Supreme Court stated that this petition was a misuse of a PIL. The Court stated that it was not responsible for everyday governance but to ensure that the public interests of the people were not violated in any way, and in cases of violation, justice was given.

Writ

T. Venugopal v. The Assistant Commissioner (2014)

The petitioner in TVenugopal v. The Assistant Commissioner, (2014), sought a writ of Mandamus wanting to become the Poojari of Shri Chelliam cum Ayyanar Temple that was situated in Koonacherri Village. He stated that his ancestors had served as Poojaris in the Temple for the last 300 years.
The Madras High Court in this case stated that the writ of Mandamus couldn’t have been issued in this particular case because the Temple was under the authority of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and the petitioner did not make a demand to the appropriate authority. The petitioner was asked to make an appropriate application before the appropriate authority.
The Court to which the writ of Mandamus was sought should not consider itself a court of appeal for deciding matters in relation to an administrative authority. Not only this, but the Court also cannot question the discretion of administrative authorities unless they are in violation of the law.

Jagdish Prasad v. Iqbal Kaur (2017)

Jagdish Prasad v. Iqbal Kaur And Ors, (2017), expressed its disagreement in view of the judgment given in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, (2003) , which stated that an order of the civil court can be amended under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court in this case, stated that when there is a correction or interference with judicial orders of the Civil Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot issue a writ of Certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution is rarely exercised by the High Court. The High Court only uses this Article to keep Courts and Tribunals within the limits of their authority.

Both civil and criminal courts can be examined under this Article only in exceptional cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice. This Article cannot be used to correct a mistake of fact and law.

In this case, a distinction has been made between Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution

The statement made in the Surya case was that the judicial order passed by the civil courts cannot be reversed or amended by the writ of Article 226 exercising power under the writ of Certiorari. Thus, the appellant moved before the High Court under Article 226, reasoning that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a civil court is not maintainable.

Along with all the contentions of the Surya Case and the arguments of the petitioner, the court observed that-

The principles of prerogative writs used in English Law has no role to play in Indian Constitutional Law.
A writ of Certiorari can be issued by a higher Court to an inferior court in order for it to certify its record of examination.
A High Court cannot pass a writ to another High Court or a bench of the same High Court.
Due to the High Courts being constituted as inferior courts in our constitutional framework along with all the evidence presented before it, the High Court stated that

Judicial Orders of the High Court cannot be amended under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The decision given in this case was in contrast to the Surya case; hence, the decision given in that case was overruled.

Sarvepali Ramiah (D) Tr.Lrs. v. District Collector Chittor (2019)

The Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) Tr.Lrs v. District Collector Chittoor,(2019), tried to define the scope of Article 22 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that –

On the grounds of illegality, rationality, the want of power, or irregularity in procedure, administrative actions are subject to Judicial Review under Article 226.
If there is an illegality or an error of law in the decision of an administrative authority, then the High Court can quash it.
The power of judicial review granted under Article 226 of the Constitution was directed both towards an order or a decision as well as against a decision-making process.
The power of a further appeal does not lie with the Court under Article 226.
The particular remedy that is available under Article 226 of the Constitution is only available when there is violation of a statutory duty by a statutory authority.
When the High Court exercises its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it can only annul or quash the decision, but in Article 227 apart from these two powers, the High Court can substitute the impugned order/decision that has been passed.
When the cases are only related to contractual rights, writs cannot be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic and essential feature of the Constitution.

Conclusion

In today’s times, every individual requires basic knowledge of some legal terms. Both PILs and writ petitions are useful mechanisms that help an individual or a group of people enforce their rights against any wrongdoing. At the same time, it is also essential to understand the difference between the two, as PILs are a form of writ and can be confused with a writ petition. Therefore, it becomes essential to understand the differences between the two, understanding the difference in the rule of locus standi in a PIL and a writ, the process of filing the two, the costs involved in filing a PIL and a Writ, and the situations in which he can opt for either a PIL or a Writ petition. Once a person understands that, it becomes easy for him to know whether he wants to file a PIL or a Writ Petition, what the nuances are involved, and when he might be required to do so.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation and writ Petition the same?

The mechanism of a PIL is different from writ Petitions. The main point of difference between PILs and writs is that while in PILs the requirement of Locus Standi is waived, this is not the case when it comes to writ petitions. Also, filing a PIL is much cheaper than filing writ petitions. PILs are considered more important because they deal with matters of public interest, while writs are filed against violations of the fundamental rights of an individual, i.e., private interests. A command given by a Court is a writ. PIL is a form of writ, the only difference being that PIL is filed in matters related to “public interest”.

What is considered “public interest” in a PIL?

“Public Interest” is considered as practices that are used to protect the weak and marginalised sections of the society. These are affected to make a change in the present social policies in a way that would benefit the weaker sections of society and look after their interests.

Who can file a Public Interest Litigation?

Any person can file a Public Interest Litigation. The person’s private rights need not have been imputed or violated. A person can file a PIL in relation to any matter concerning “public interest”. Not only a person but even an organisation can file a PIL.

Which laws govern a PIL?

The process of filing a PIL is different in different High Courts.

Bombay High Court – The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010
Gujarat High Court – Rules – High Court of Gujarat
Delhi High Court – NEW DELHI NOTIFICATION No. 451fRuiesIDHC Dated: 25.11.2010 …

The Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines for filing a PIL

https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/Guidelines/pilguidelines.pdf

In which court can a PIL be filed?

A Public Interest Litigation can be filed in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India.

Is it possible for a writ to be issued against a private person?

Usually the issuing of writs falls under a public remedy and can only be issued against public bodies. A writ of Habeas Corpus can also be issued against a private body. Writs can also be issued against a private person if they are imposed by a private duty.

Can Courts entertain writ petitions when the contractual disputes in spite of an arbitration clause being present?

Courts in India have stated that they entertain writ petitions in exceptional circumstances although the parties might have an alternative remedy like arbitration. A few of these circumstances are as follows:

When the writ petition is for enforcing a fundamental right.
When the principles of natural justice are violated.
When a party commits an act where it exercises excess power

Against whom can a writ petition be filed?

Writ petitions are usually filed against the government or a body which exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and public authorities which discharge some public function

Who can file a Writ Petition?

Any individual whose rights have been violated by some action or inaction of a public body carrying out functions of the state can file for a writ petition.

Is there any time limit prescribed for filing a writ petition?

There is no time limit that has been prescribed for filing a writ petition. However the Courts have stated in various Judgments that the filing of writ petitions should be filed within a reasonable time. If there is any delay then the parties concerned must show reason for such delay

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity