Public Interest originated from the United States of America in the year 1980. The architect of PIL in India is Justice B.N. Bhagwati and justice Krishnan Iyer in Bandhua Mukti morcha case1. · The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under-trial prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
o In this case it was held that "any individual from general society or social activity bunch acting bonafide" can summon the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) looking for redressal against infringement of lawful or sacred privileges of people who because of social or financial or some other incapacity can't move toward the Court.
o By this judgment PIL turned into a strong weapon for the requirement of "public obligations" where leader activity or wrongdoing brought about open injury. Also, thus any resident of India or any customer gatherings or social activity gatherings would now be able to move toward the pinnacle court of the nation looking for legitimate cures altogether situations where the interests of the overall population or a segment of people, in general, are in question.
o Justice Bhagwati did a ton to guarantee that the idea of PILs was plainly articulated. He didn't demand the recognition of procedural details and surprisingly treated standard letters from public-disapproved of people as writ petitions.
PIL is a part of judicial activism, basically, this PIL is to protect the rights of the poor.
PIL was introduced in India due to different reasons like the absence of accessibility of regular public law during the time of 1970 when the crisis was forced on the country, there was no solution for the infringement of privileges of the commoners, another essential explanation was the costly legitimate expense which was not helpful for the lower working class layers which involved the greater part of the populace yet at the same time they couldn't decide on lawful cure in the event of any infringement of rights because of the absence of assets additionally the need od lawful information contributed towards a vulnerable side in giving equity to the majority. The entirety of this prompted the presentation of a legal cure which was available to all and gave equity to whoever moves toward the court paying little heed to their monetary status, the fundamental thought was to require not to go through the customs of the court must be given a problem-free legal framework.
PIL should be documented by socially disapproved of the individual to advance the privileges of public not his own then it is called PIL, assuming his privileges engages in it, it gets private interest suit. PIL is non-ill-disposed that is the Bar and the bench both are attempting to find a common solution for the problem at hand. Here the idea of locus stand doesn't have any significant bearing since it can likewise be documented by a socially disapproved individual, it advances class interest, not the individual interest since it is pointed toward giving fast and reasonable equity at the doorstep of individuals. It depends on the cycle of Pro bono public that is for the government assistance of the people.2
In PIL proceeding power of judicial review and writ jurisdiction is utilized, the force of legal survey is under Supreme Court and Writ purview is with SC under article 32 and with HC under article 226.3. PIL must be recorded before the SC and before the HC. PIL continuing are extraordinary sort of procedures for which exceptional method has been formed by the courts. Court charges need not be connected bearings might be given against the individual and the state. Help may come in types of bearings or money-related remuneration to be given to the bothered individual.
PIL has promoted the socialistic agenda and dignity of individuals it has ensured the equal protection of the laws. It has promoted good governance and also enormously increased the level of awareness of people about their own rights and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding those rights, PIL has come as a boon to the country until now as it has made the government more accountable and also helped in the eradication of corruption in the country to an extent. It has helped in amplifying the scope of Art. 19(1)(a) and art. 214.
However every boon comes with a bane, every coin has two sides similarly there has been misuse of PIL in ways which is not beneficial to the country. Clever-minded individuals promote their own interest in name of PIL. It is the doorway of various litigations hence it chokes the already overburdened judiciary.
In response to certain arising problems, various corrective measures have also been taken by the judiciary to ensure the smooth functioning of PIL has to maintain the true essence and idea behind its establishment and to stand on the principle that justice is the right of each and every individual who is willing to seek for it.