Indian Polity

Model Answer

Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has fundamentally reshaped the judicial system in India by empowering courts to champion the rights of marginalized communities. Rooted in Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, PIL enables individuals or groups to file petitions in the High Courts and Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights are under threat, expanding judicial reach.

Reasons for the Growth of Public Interest Litigation in India

1. Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court, particularly under Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, expanded locus standi to empower disadvantaged groups to seek justice, marking a shift towards judicial activism. For example, the Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) case highlighted judicial activism in addressing the rights of undertrial prisoners .
2. Protection of Marginalised Groups: PILs have played a vital role in safeguarding the rights of vulnerable populations and the environment, often stepping in where government actions have been inadequate. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984) case addressed the plight of bonded labourers, leading to significant social reforms .
3. Simplified Access to Justice: By relaxing locus standi, PILs have enabled NGOs and activists to represent marginalized groups, ensuring that those who cannot approach the court directly have their issues addressed. The PUCL vs. Union of India (2001) case allowed NGOs to act on behalf of starving citizens, leading to the Right to Food campaign .
4. Media Influence: The media has played a significant role in raising awareness about key PIL cases, shaping public opinion and influencing more litigations focused on public welfare. The Narmada Bachao Andolan case (2000) garnered massive media attention, raising awareness about dam displacement issues .
5. Judicial Response to Executive Inaction: PILs have often been used as a tool to compel government action where the executive has fallen short of addressing critical public concerns. For instance, in the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, compelling the government to take action.

Supreme Court Emerging as the World’s Most Powerful Judiciary

The Indian Supreme Court has emerged as a powerful judiciary through its expansive interpretation of rights and intervention in governance. It has used PILs to broaden the interpretation of constitutional rights, influencing legislative domains. For example, in the MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) case, a PIL prompted the Supreme Court to broaden the interpretation of the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 . The court’s ability to intervene in policy-making and its broad judicial review powers have allowed it to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, giving it immense influence over national policies.

Conclusion

The innovative use of PIL has positioned the Indian Supreme Court as a powerful force for social justice and legal reform, addressing systemic issues and protecting the rights of marginalized communities. However, to maintain its efficacy, reforms to the PIL process must prioritize public interest while ensuring judicial balance.

Model Answer

Lok Adalats vs. Arbitration Tribunals

Both Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals serve as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms aimed at resolving disputes outside the conventional court system. However, they differ in terms of nature, jurisdiction, and procedures.

Distinction between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals

Nature of Disputes

• Lok Adalats primarily address minor civil, family, and petty criminal cases. For instance, they often resolve land disputes, matrimonial issues, and cases like cheque bounces (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987).
• Arbitration Tribunals focus on commercial, contractual, and corporate disputes. A notable example is the Vodafone tax case, which was settled through arbitration (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996).

Legal Basis

• Lok Adalats operate under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, aimed at delivering quick and accessible justice, particularly for underprivileged citizens.
• Arbitration Tribunals function under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides a structured framework for resolving disputes.

Voluntary Nature

• Participation in Lok Adalats is voluntary, requiring mutual agreement from both parties to resolve disputes.
• In contrast, Arbitration Tribunals are based on agreements or contracts between disputing parties.

Appointment of Judges/Arbitrators

• Lok Adalats are chaired by a judicial officer, typically a retired judge or sitting magistrate.
• Arbitrators in Arbitration Tribunals are selected by the parties involved and may include legal or non-legal professionals, as seen in international cases like Cairn Energy vs. the Indian Government.

Cost Efficiency

• Lok Adalats generally do not require court fees, making them more cost-effective.
• Arbitration Tribunals involve fees for arbitrators and legal representation, which can increase costs significantly.

Appeal Process

• Once a settlement is reached in Lok Adalats, no appeal can be made, although parties retain the right to litigate.
• In Arbitration, awards can be challenged under certain conditions, often due to bias or procedural issues, as demonstrated in the Antrix-Devas arbitration case.

Role of Lawyers

• Lok Adalats do not require legal representation, though parties may seek advice. Many parties represent themselves.
• Arbitration Tribunals typically involve lawyers, especially in complex cases like Reliance vs. ONGC.

Speed of Resolution

• Lok Adalats resolve disputes quickly, often in a single sitting. For example, over 1.14 crore cases were settled at the 3rd National Lok Adalat (2024) organized by NALSA.
• Arbitration can take longer, depending on the case’s complexity.

Civil and Criminal Case Jurisdiction

• Lok Adalats handle civil matters and minor criminal cases (compoundable offences), such as cheque bounce cases and motor accident claims.
• Arbitration Tribunals strictly deal with civil matters, particularly commercial disputes, as seen in the Ambani family asset dispute.