Introduction:
In Indian law, Public Interest Litigation OR जनहित याचिका means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the pained party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. In Public interest litigation the power is given to the member of public by courts etc. through judicial. Consciousness judicial activism, that member of the public can be a NGO, Institution or an individual. In INDIA SUPREME COURT rejecting the criticism of judicial activism, has said the judiciary has stepped in to give directions only because of executive inaction what with laws enacted by Parliament and the State legislatures in the last 63 years for the poor not being implemented properly. A Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly pointed out that laws enacted for achieving the goals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution had been extremely inadequate and tardy, and the benefit of welfare measures enshrined in those legislation had not reached millions of poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections, nor did efforts to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots yield the desired result.
Writing the judgment in a case related to sewerage workers, Justice Singhvi said: “The most unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of the state i.e. the judiciary issues directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, and directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or overreach.”
The Bench clarified that it deemed it necessary to erase the impression and misgivings among some people that the superior courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for espousing the cause of the poor who could not seek protection and vindication of their rights, exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction. The judges said it was the duty of the judiciary, like that of the political and executive constituents of the state, to protect the rights of every citizen and ensure that everyone lived with dignity.
Such cases may occur in public interest when the victims do not have the necessary consciousness, know-how or resources to commence litigation or his/their freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and precede suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any public-spirited individual or body. Further courts can also take cognisance on the basis of letters written to them or by Newspaper Reports.
Origin Of P.I.L:
Prior to the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. However, post 1980s and after the emergency era, the apex court decided to reach out to the people and hence it devised an innovative way wherein a person or a civil society group could approach the supreme court seeking legal remedies in cases where public interest is at stake. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PIL's in the court. Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as any other legal case and there have been instances when even letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been taken up as PIL's and heard by the court
.
Examples & Demonstrations:
The Bombay High Court on 31 August 2006 directed the broadcasters to give an undertaking that they will abide by the Cable Television Network Act 1995 as well as the court's orders by tomorrow, in view of larger public interest. A division bench comprising Justices R M Lodha and S A Bubbey were hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Professor Pratibha Nathani of St Xavier's College alleging that films without certification by the Censor Board for Film Certification (CBFC) allowing 'free public exhibition', were being shown on cable channels, which have a bad impact on children. Hence, such films should not be shown and action be taken against those still running such content on their channels.
The court on 23 August had allowed the cable operators and channels to screen only 'U' and 'U/A' certified films.
However, before that order, the police had taken action against the Multi-system operators and seized their decoders due to which they could not telecast certain channels. Assistant Commissioner of Police Sanjay Apranti told the court that they did not have a problem if the channels provided the cable operators with new decoders.
Also, Zee Television and Star Television networks applied for the declaration in writing that they would abide by the said Act and court orders.
The court also directed seven channels—Star Movies, Star One, Star Gold, HBO, ZEE Movies, AXN and Sony Max—to furnish a list of all the films that they were to screen to the police.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें