Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice

In India, over the last three and half decades or so, the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation has come to be recognized as a characteristic feature of the higher judiciary. The phrase 'Public law Litigation' was first prominently used by American academic Abram Chayes to describe the practice of lawyers or public spirited individuals who seek to precipitate social change through court-ordered decrees that reform legal rules, enforce existing laws and articulate public norms.1 He identified four inimitability of public law litigation in the United States which is common to PIL actions in India. First, the joinder of parties has been liberalized.2 Today, all parties with an "interest" in the controversy can join the litigation.

Trial Judge : His Power

We all know that '' THE TRIAL JUDGE IS REALLY "ON TRIAL''. There is, of course, no doubt that as a matter of law if the appraisal of the evidence by the trial court suffers from a material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or on a misreading of the evidence or on conjectures and surmises the appellate court is entitled to interfere with the finding of fact1. In Jagdish Singh vs Madhuri Devi, decided on 28 April, 2008, it was held that '' Three requisites should normally be present before an appellate court reverses a finding of the trial court; (i) it applies its mind to reasons given by the trial court; (ii) it has no advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses; and (iii) it records cogent and convincing reasons for disagreeing with the trial court.''