About the Author: Meera is a Student of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi.
INTRODUCTION
Public interest is a term frequently invoked in legal and political discourse, yet its meaning remains elusive. ‘The public may get interested in something, but it may not be in the public interest,’ remarked Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta in his rebuttal to the Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing Delhi University to disclose details of the Prime Minister’s graduation records[1]. While the validity of the CIC’s order is beyond the scope of this discussion, the rationale they invoked—’public interest’—merits examination. The phrase is deeply embedded in the legal lexicon, appearing around ten times in the Indian Constitution and frequently surfacing in statutes such as the Right to Information Act, 2005; the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011; and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Additionally, a significant number of petitions are filed every year under public interest (PILs). Despite its extensive usage, the boundaries of public interest remain largely undefined, with courts left to interpret the term on a case-by-case basis.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST
In R v. Bedfordshire (1855)[2], the Court of Queen’s Bench held that “public interest does not mean that which is interesting as a gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” This definition has influenced various rulings by English and Indian courts. The phrase cannot be confined to a rigid framework, as it encompasses multiple factors. Consequently, no hard-and-fast rule exists to determine what constitutes public interest, making judicial interpretation crucial[3].
Over time, courts have shaped the meaning of public interest based on case contexts. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v Indian Express Newspapers[4], the Supreme Court ruled that public interest includes the right of citizens to be informed about economic matters that affect them. The case involved an injunction sought by Reliance Petrochemicals against Indian Express to prevent the publication of a report concerning its debenture issue. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji ruled in favour of Indian Express, emphasizing that public interest cannot be equated with corporate interest and that businesses cannot suppress information merely because it might negatively affect them. This case reinforced that public interest extends beyond state actions to include economic and corporate transparency.
PUBLIC INTEREST VS. GOVERNMENT INTEREST
There is a tendency among the executive to conflate public interest with government interest. This often leads to the invocation of public interest to justify a wide range of actions, from restricting free speech and withholding information to implementing economic and national security policies. When these claims are contested, the judiciary has played a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of the term. In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)[5], the Court held that restrictions on press freedom must be justified under the narrow grounds of public order, not vague claims of public interest. Similarly, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)[6], the Supreme Court ruled that government transparency is generally in the public interest unless disclosure affects national security or governance. Justice P.N. Bhagwati emphasized that public interest is not static but evolves with societal needs.
BALANCING PUBLIC INTEREST AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Public interest often clashes with individual rights, requiring courts to strike a balance between collective welfare and fundamental freedoms[7]. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018)[8], the Supreme Court set the precedent that public interest cannot override privacy unless state action meets the proportionality test, ensuring that restrictions are necessary and the least restrictive means to achieve the objective. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2012)[9], the Court ruled that personal information such as salary details, property ownership, and disciplinary records cannot be disclosed under RTI unless it serves a larger public interest.
Similarly, in Jacob Puliyel v Union of India (2022)[10], the Court held that while vaccination policies serve the public interest, individuals cannot be forced to take vaccines, reinforcing the principle that public welfare must not come at the cost of personal autonomy. Furthermore, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)[11], the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite internet shutdowns in Kashmir violated freedom of speech and that restrictions must be proportional and justified in the public interest.
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE EVOLUTION OF PIL
The judiciary’s evolving interpretation of public interest is most visible in the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. Originally inspired by the need to provide access to justice for marginalized communities, PILs transformed the traditional locus standi rule, allowing individuals and organizations to approach courts on behalf of those unable to do so themselves. Initially designed to address state inaction in human rights and environmental cases, PILs have expanded to encompass governance and policy issues. This judicial innovation has been instrumental in securing fundamental rights, holding governments accountable, and protecting collective interests[12].
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF PIL IN INDIA
The concept of PIL originated in the United States but has undergone significant modifications in common law systems, including the dilution of the strict requirement of a legal interest. Some countries have broadened its scope beyond litigation to include negotiations and non-litigation approaches[13]. Justice Krishna Iyer played a pivotal role in the development of PIL in India, introducing the concept through Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Bhai[14] and using the terminology of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ and ‘Epistolary Jurisdiction’ in Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union v UOI[15]. However, the idea of PIL gained momentum in the S.P. Gupta case.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI[16], the locus standi got relaxed in order that justice may become easily available to the lowly and the lost. So, what constitutes a PIL? This had been answered by the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in re ICICI Bank Ltd[17]. The Court observed that litigation does not become a PIL merely because a question of law of general public importance is raised. A PIL is where the interest which the Court pronounces upon is itself, in a representative capacity, a public interest.
CONCLUSION
The evolution of PILs in India underscores the judiciary’s crucial role in shaping and safeguarding public interest. Whether through constitutional interpretation, statutory provisions, or judicial activism, courts have repeatedly clarified that public interest is dynamic and must be understood in context. While its boundaries remain fluid, the principle itself remains central to the functioning of a just and democratic society.
References:
[1] ‘PM Degree Row: Mere ‘Interest to Public’ Does Not Warrant Disclosure under RTI, Delhi University Tells High Court’ The Hindu (11 February 2025) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-degree-row-something-of-interest-to-public-and-public-interest-not-same-delhi-university-tells-hc/article69207416.ece> accessed 15 February 2025
[2] R v Bedfordshire [1855] 118 ER 1160
[3] Onkar Lal Bajaj v Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673
[4] Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v Indian Express Newspapers (1980) 4 SCC 239
[5] AIR 124; 1950 SCR 594
[6]AIR 1982 SC 149; (1981) 2 SCC 365
[7] Sunday Chime, ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and PUBLIC INTEREST’ (2024) 9 African Journal of International Energy & Environmental Law <https://ajieel.com/index.php/a/article/download/94/90/363>
[8] 12 SCC 1
[9] 1 SCC 212; SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012
[10] Jacob Puliyel v Union of India WP (C) 607/2021
[11]3 SCC 637; WP (Civ) No 1031/2019
[12] Mamta Rao, Public Interest Litigation (5th edn, EBC 2018)
[13] OP Tiwari, Public Interest Litigation (Allahabad Law Agency 2014)
[14] Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay vs M/S Abdulbhai Faizullabhai & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1455
[15] Fertiliser Corporation Kamgar Union v UOI (1981) 1 SCC 568
[16] In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI AIR 1982 SC 1473
[17] re ICICI Bank Ltd AIR 2006 All 239