Author: Manya Sharma
ABSTRACT
This study assesses the role of PIL in achieving justice and the extent of access to justice which is available in the society. It studies the positive and negative effects of the PIL system and examines in detail the socio-economic factors which affect the access to justice. It also discusses the role of technology in enhancing justice and moreover, takes into account the effectiveness of legal aid programs in ensuring access to justice for vulnerable populations. The study also investigates the intersection of PIL and right to information laws and also examines the role of PIL in environmental protection cases.
INTRODUCTION
The idea of justice occupies center stage both in ethics and in legal and political philosophy¹. This idea is applied to one’s actions, laws, and government policies, and many times, a policy is rejected merely on the grounds that it is unjust¹. Societies have changed drastically over the millennia¹. Justice systems are no exception, although all have dealt with concerns like property rights, murder, theft, marriage, and so on¹. In the Mesopotamian society, lawyers did not exist¹. The local council was supposed to hear a case, followed by a judge or a court¹. In the olden times, for example, in the Mesopotamian society, only men served in courts, thereby revealing the patriarchal nature of the legal profession¹. However, in contemporary society, more and more female judges and lawyers can be seen in the court¹. Confucius had a major impact on ancient China’s view of justice and law¹. Confucius and his disciples believed a harmonious society depended on five relationships¹. These were the relationships between a ruler and subject, a husband and wife, a father and son, an older and younger brother, and a friend and friend¹. When everyone worked on being a good person, cared for these relationships, and fulfilled their responsibilities, society wouldn’t even need strict laws or punishments¹. Plato built on his teacher Socrates’ ideas about justice and the belief that absolute truths exist¹. Because absolute truth exists, Plato believed justice couldn’t be subjective¹. Balance and control were essential, as well as a hierarchy¹. Plato’s vision of a just society had three classes: craftspeople, auxiliaries, and guardians¹. The guardians were in charge, but to achieve justice, all classes must embody certain virtues¹. Craftspeople should be temperate, auxiliaries should be courageous, and guardians should be wise¹.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Justice has been a long-debated topic by philosophers and scholars worldwide². The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian, a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as ‘the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due’². ‘Justice’ has sometimes been used in a way that makes it virtually indistinguishable from rightness in general². Aristotle, for example, distinguished between ‘universal’ justice that corresponded to ‘virtue as a whole’ and ‘particular’ justice which had a narrower scope². But Aristotle also noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’, this was always ‘in relation to another person’². In other words, if justice is to be identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to each other’². Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where ‘every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want’, ‘the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of’². Hume also believed – and philosophical controversy on this point persists until today – that justice has no place in close personal relationships, such as the family, where (it is alleged) each identifies with the others’ interests so strongly that there is no need and no reason for anyone to make claims of personal entitlement². Philosophers writing on justice have observed that it has two different faces, one conservative of existing norms and practices, the other demanding reform of these norms and practices². John Rawls has done a remarkable job while addressing the concept of justice in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’². While designing his justice theory, Rawls has given two principles on which, according to him, is the core of the concept of justice². The concept of ‘original position’ played a significant role in Rawls’ principles along with the ‘veil of ignorance’².
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Socio-economic factors play a vital role in affecting access to justice. Individuals who belong to lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to be targeted by the police officers. Socio-economic status also greatly impacts the access to legal representation. People belonging to higher socio-economic strata can afford better advocates, thereby affecting the outcome of various cases in the court. While legal aid and public defender programs aim to bridge the financial divide, they too face challenges. Public defender offices, often underfunded and overloaded with cases, may struggle to provide the same level of personalized attention and resources as private attorneys. Limited financial resources restrict access to crucial investigative resources that could bolster a defence. The lack of access to these resources can result in incomplete or insufficient defences, compromising the overall fairness of the legal process. Neighbourhood demographics play a pertinent role in shaping access to justice. People of colour and those belonging to low- income groups face higher arrest rates and severe sentencing as compared to others, hence, reflecting, a considerable form of discrimination. Inadequate funding is a problem which persists when public defence systems are taken into consideration and this problem further increases the disparities between people. Public defenders who are not well- resourced often have to handle heavy caseloads, thereby, negatively impacting their ability to provide proper and effective representation.
ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN SHAPING ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Technology has played a pivotal role in shaping access to justice³. E-courts is a system which has helped to mitigate many challenges and barriers preventing access to justice³. The E-courts system has addressed pressing issues like financial constraints, limited legal knowledge, geographical limitations, and systemic biases³. The growth of E-courts has helped in economically disadvantaged nations, where judicial resources are limited³. E-courts have helped to reduce travel costs³. The coming in of E-courts has brought in the system of virtual hearings and online dispute resolution³. Electronic filing and case management, which is a part of the E-courts system, has made the legal process quicker and has led to a reduction in legal costs³. With the coming in of the E-courts system, there has been an easier online system to access case information without the need to incur additional costs on document retrieval³. The broad access to justice has helped to counteract biases relating to geographical location or the socio-economic status of an individual³. However, despite the advantages that the E-courts system offers, it faces many challenges³. One major challenge is that not everyone has access to technology, and therefore, this unequal access to technology prevents many people from participating in virtual court proceedings³. Moreover, technology is susceptible to security concerns, and hence, the E-courts system faces a risk of hacking and breach of confidential data³. Software glitches and network issues can disrupt legal proceedings and have the potential to cause miscommunication³. Digital communication cannot accurately tell the judges about the emotions of the people, and hence, this could negatively affect the ability of the judges to assess witness credibility³.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PIL SYSTEM
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to such legal action which is initiated in a court of law in order to enforce the public interest or general interest in which the common people have some interest by which their legal right or liability is affected.4 “Public interest litigation presents the court with an issue-based problem concerning society, and solutions to that problem must be found within the legal framework,” the court said in Swaraj Abhiyan-1 vs. Union of India, emphasising the importance and desirability of PIL in a welfare state like India.5 Sometimes the problem is caused by bureaucratic inactivity and apathy; sometimes the problem is caused by executive excesses; and sometimes the problem is caused by the executive’s ostrich-like reaction.5 These circumstances reflect the broad contours of public interest concerns brought to the court’s attention, and these are the kinds of problems we need to solve.5It improves everyone’s access to justice. Any person or organisation that is capable of doing so can file petitions on behalf of those who are unable or lack the resources to do so.5It aids in the judicial oversight of state facilities such as jails, asylums, and protective homes, among others.5 It’s a crucial method for judicial review.5 PIL is a critical tool for social reform, preserving the rule of law, and accelerating the balance of law and justice.5 The introduction of PILs ensures increased public interest in judicial review of administrative action.5
Some Landmark Judgements in the History of PIL in India:
Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai[3], Justice Krishna Iyer sowed the seeds of public interest litigation for the first time in India in 1976.5
Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979),[4] the first recorded case of PIL, focused on the inhumane conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners, and resulted in the release of over 40,000 under trial prisoners.5
MC Mehta V. Union of India [5] : In a Public Interest Litigation brought against Ganga water contamination in order to avoid further pollution of the Ganga.5 The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner, despite not being a riparian owner, is entitled to petition the court for the compliance of statutory provisions because he is concerned about the lives of those who use Ganga water.5
Sure! Here’s your text with the superscript 6 format applied:
PIL⁶ does have a negative side, though⁶. There have been more and more examples of PIL⁶ misuse in recent years⁶. These petitions, which frequently come from people with no real stake in the outcome of the case⁶, are used to harass or stall the legal system⁶. Additionally, PILs⁶ have been employed to obstruct the executive branch of government and for personal gain⁶. Personal vendettas can also be settled through PIL⁶. This occurs when a PIL⁶ is filed against another individual or group with the express goal of causing them harm⁶. A PIL⁶, for example, could be launched against a political opponent in order to harm their reputation⁶. Alternatively, a PIL⁶ may be brought against a business competitor in order to force them out of business⁶. Using PIL⁶ to settle personal vendettas can result in a lot of bad outcomes⁶. It has the potential to erode public trust in the judiciary⁶. It can also result in the waste of judicial resources⁶, as courts are forced to spend time and energy on cases that are not truly of public interest⁶. PIL⁶ can also be abused for political ends⁶. This occurs when a political party or organization files a PIL⁶ in order to increase political clout⁶. A PIL⁶, for example, could be filed in response to an unpopular government policy⁶. Alternatively, a PIL⁶ may be launched against a political opponent in order to humiliate them⁶. Many times, lawyers and, more lately, law students have attempted to use PIL⁶ to garner prominence⁶. The court has even referred to these as “publicity interest litigation” in the past⁶. The court emphasized how, rather than serving the purpose of PILs⁶, such petitions harm the public good⁶.
PIL AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION LAWS
There is an intersection between the Public Interest Litigation system and the right to information laws which is evident in the objectives they seek to attain. Both the right to information laws and PIL aim to enhance the transparency and the accountability of the executive. Both the instruments enable to expose government actions and allow us to hold the government officials accountable for their actions. Both the instruments ensure that the public authorities shall be answerable to the citizens for the policies they formulate and for any implications arising from those policies. Both the instruments have ensured that citizens participate in the governance of the society. PIL has enabled citizens to approach courts on public concerns, thereby resulting in better governance and ensuring direct participation of citizens. Similarly, RTI has ensured that citizens can access information from public authorities including government records, information on budget, etc., hence, helping the citizens to participate in decision making. RTI is an extremely useful tool for Public Interest Litigation. RTI allows the disclosure of information on government actions which can be extremely useful to identify the areas which require PIL intervention. Moreover, RTI provides government data, records, reports and other documents which are required in the court proceedings relating to PIL. PIL greatly strengthens RTI due to the objectives that it seeks to attain.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, unequal access to justice persists in our society due to numerous socio-economic factors at play. PIL, although, is a vital instrument for providing justice, it has potential negative consequences for the society. In this era of revolution, technology has played a crucial role in ensuring proper access to justice despite its drawbacks. Moreover, RTI has been a vital tool for PIL and PIL has greatly strengthened the Right to Information laws. There is an intersection between RTI and PIL due to the common objectives both instruments seek to attain.
REFERENCES
1. “What Is Justice?” Human Rights Careers, www.humanrightscareers.com/articles/what-is-justice/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
2. “Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
3. Waseem, Anupam Sharma, and Dr. Akhil Kumar. “Transforming Access to Justice in the Digital Age: The Role of E-Courts.” , vol. 8, no. 2-3, Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
4. “Explained: What is PIL? When can it be filed? Courts view on misuse of PIL.” India Today, www.indiatoday.in/law/story/explained-what-is-pil-when-can-it-be-filed-courts-view-on-misuse-of-pil-1649750-2020-01-31. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
5. “Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Its Objectives.” Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
6. “From Public Interest to Personal Gain: The PIL Misuse Menace.” Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
