PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ITS EVOLUTION AND IMPACT IN THE USA AND INDIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v2.i2.2021.5327Keywords:
Public Interest Litigation, Lokpal and Lokayukta, Locus Standi, Judicial Review Etc.Abstract [English]
Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a crucial mechanism for ensuring justice and accountability in both the United States and India. Originally conceived to provide marginalized individuals and groups with the opportunity to seek judicial relief, PIL has evolved differently in these two countries. In the United States, the strict legal concept of “locus standi” has traditionally limited access to courts to those with a direct and tangible interest in the case. However, PIL in the U.S. has still played a pivotal role in civil rights, environmental law, and other areas of public concern, such as seen in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Massachusetts v. EPA . In contrast, India has adopted a more expansive approach to locus standi, allowing not only those directly affected but also social organizations and public-spirited citizens to file PILs on behalf of others. This inclusive approach has significantly transformed India’s legal landscape, providing greater access to justice and promoting social reforms. Landmark cases like SP Gupta v. Union of India and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan highlight the impact of PIL in addressing human rights violations, environmental degradation, and social injustices.
Furthermore, the concept of accountability within governance in India is reinforced through the establishment of institutions like the Lokpal and Lokayukta, aimed at combating corruption within the public sector. The Lokpal, created through the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act of 2013, and the state-level Lokayuktas serve as mechanisms for transparency and accountability, though challenges persist regarding their independence and effectiveness.
This paper explores the development of PIL in the USA and India, the evolution of locus standi, its role in expanding access to justice, and the legal frameworks of Lokpal and Lokayukta in India, providing a comparative analysis of PIL’s role in promoting public welfare in both countries.
References
Cases
India
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
United States
• Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1261193
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)
Statutes and Reports
India
• Law Commission of India, Report No. 186: Proposal to Constitute Environment Courts, (2003).
• The Constitution of India, Articles 32 and 226.
• The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
United States
• Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702
• U.S. Constitution, Article III.
Books and Articles
Cass R. Sunstein, “Standing and the Future of Public Law”, 88 (1) Michigan Law Review 143 (1989). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1122736
M.P. Jain, “Constitutional Law of India”, 8th ed. (LexisNexis 2018).
Upendra Baxi, “Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India”, 29 (4) International Journal of the Sociology of Law 355 (1981).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Dr. Inderpreet Kaur Narang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.