What do you think?
Rate this book
South Asia in the Social Sciences
Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India
Based on empirical research, this book shows how public interest litigation (PIL) grants the appellate courts enormous flexibility in procedure, allowing them to manoeuvre themselves into positions of overweening authority. While PIL cases are usually politically analysed solely in terms of their effects, whether beneficial or disastrous, this book locates the political challenges that PIL poses in its very process, arguing that its fundamentally protean nature stems from its mimicry of ideas of popular justice. It examines PIL as part of a larger trend towards legal informalism in post-Emergency India. Casting a critical eye over these institutional reforms that aimed to adapt the colonial legal inheritance to 'Indian realities', this book looks at the challenges posed by self-consciously culturalist juridical innovations like PIL to ideas of fairness in adjudication, as well as democratic politics.
ebook
Published September 4, 2017
10 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 20, 2020
Public Interest litigation has been in news since the time of its inception. We have also seen judges imposing the cost on the petitioners for frivolous petitions which do not serve the public but is filled only for sensation and getting fame. The author covers the history of PIL and quotes various write-ups and judgements of the Supreme Court. In past few years, we have seen a lot of debate on the ceiling issue of Delhi, this has been covered by the author and actions which have been taken by the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court. The author brings us the other side of PIL business where judges have been actively involved into the administration of the city which has given birth to various other issues and have at times acted as an impediment for the administrative actions. The job of Amicus Curie has been discussed at length and it has been emphasized that if procedure is not followed in the courts then it can also lead to injustice which has happened in various cases.
A must-read for anyone who wants to know about the history of PIL and understand the working of the system with regards to the Public Interest Litigation.
A must-read for anyone who wants to know about the history of PIL and understand the working of the system with regards to the Public Interest Litigation.
November 30, 2022
Professor Anuj Bhuwania's book stages an important public intervention in the public interest litigation (PIL) debate in India. He successfully highlights how PIL uniquely enables and facilitates judicial tyranny—whether for neoliberal reasons or nepotistic corruption. Its legal 'informalism'—relaxed standing, creative solution-finding, and, most importantly, doing-away of procedure—has allowed the Courts (primarily the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court) to deindustrialize Delhi, evict slum-dwellers at a pace that would make Sanjay Gandhi blush, destroy rickshaw drivers' livelihoods, and move commercial shops away from where they had established themselves. The list goes on.
Professor Bhuwania deftly weaves Partha Chatterjee's concept of 'political society' into his (constitutional) ethnography of PIL jurisdiction. He clearly shows the Courts' hypocrisy in dealing with 'parties' to the cases they take up: 'political society' (unwieldy, illegal actors) had to be demolished while 'civil society' (posh shopping malls, the Commonwealth Games Village) could be excused. The original realist insight of the law's lack of evenhandedness is harshly evident here.
However, the more important point here is how the evacuation of procedure—including the basic principle of hearing the other party or even having a petitioner—paved the path to an authoritarianism no institution could match. A court exercising PIL jurisdiction could 'effectively take over urban governance' (106)—a feat courts in any other country could not come close to accomplishing.
Professor Bhuwania's moral critique of PIL's devolution into a middle-class plaything is important. However, this critique is shared by many others, including Professor Baxi, Aditya Nigam, and Usha Ramanathan. What makes Courting the People unique is its attention to the continuities that tie PIL jurisprudence together—collectively marked by their disregard for procedure. These are what make PIL such a potent tool in the hands of judges who share the neoliberal agenda that gripped India post-liberalization.
Professor Bhuwania deftly weaves Partha Chatterjee's concept of 'political society' into his (constitutional) ethnography of PIL jurisdiction. He clearly shows the Courts' hypocrisy in dealing with 'parties' to the cases they take up: 'political society' (unwieldy, illegal actors) had to be demolished while 'civil society' (posh shopping malls, the Commonwealth Games Village) could be excused. The original realist insight of the law's lack of evenhandedness is harshly evident here.
However, the more important point here is how the evacuation of procedure—including the basic principle of hearing the other party or even having a petitioner—paved the path to an authoritarianism no institution could match. A court exercising PIL jurisdiction could 'effectively take over urban governance' (106)—a feat courts in any other country could not come close to accomplishing.
Professor Bhuwania's moral critique of PIL's devolution into a middle-class plaything is important. However, this critique is shared by many others, including Professor Baxi, Aditya Nigam, and Usha Ramanathan. What makes Courting the People unique is its attention to the continuities that tie PIL jurisprudence together—collectively marked by their disregard for procedure. These are what make PIL such a potent tool in the hands of judges who share the neoliberal agenda that gripped India post-liberalization.
August 3, 2020
"PIL was a tragedy to begin with and overtime became a dangerous farce", says @anujbhuwania in this fascinating book. His critique is primarily rooted in PILs' dispensation of process, giving unfettered power to judges to implement their personal world view in name of justice.
And this is empirically shown through various cases, ranging from vehicular pollution matters, slum demolition, environment issues etc, where some judges got to enforce their views on 'social good', at the cost of fundamental rights of individuals,mostly marginalized.
Examples of such orders passed, without hearing the affected parties, are cited. The PILs are driven by few judges and few influential lawyers, who are appointed as amicus curiae.
Bhuwania shows that the process was inherently flawed, always carrying seeds of disaster within. https://t.co/VmoDBchge7
"The problem with PIL is not just that it increasingly leads to unjust outcomes because of the changed ideological climate, but that it can so easily do so because of its diminution of judicial process", he says.
Since there are no constraints of process, the judges get dangerous powers to act on their predilections, unchecked by procedural safeguards.
"PIL with the kind of power it vests in judges which actually empowers them to act on their biases (aesthetic, anti-poor or otherwise) and that too with a free hand in a most expansive manner, unconstrained by technicalities and rules of adjudication", he says.
This is a must read to understand the politics behind PILs and their impacts. The general academic discourse doesn't go beyond the celebrated PILs. This seminal work exposes the ground impact of many headline making PILs.
Hope there will be a sequel to this, examining some recent PIL trends, such as use of 'ambush PILs' to secure legitimacy in politically sensitive issues.
https://twitter.com/manuvichar/status...
And this is empirically shown through various cases, ranging from vehicular pollution matters, slum demolition, environment issues etc, where some judges got to enforce their views on 'social good', at the cost of fundamental rights of individuals,mostly marginalized.
Examples of such orders passed, without hearing the affected parties, are cited. The PILs are driven by few judges and few influential lawyers, who are appointed as amicus curiae.
Bhuwania shows that the process was inherently flawed, always carrying seeds of disaster within. https://t.co/VmoDBchge7
"The problem with PIL is not just that it increasingly leads to unjust outcomes because of the changed ideological climate, but that it can so easily do so because of its diminution of judicial process", he says.
Since there are no constraints of process, the judges get dangerous powers to act on their predilections, unchecked by procedural safeguards.
"PIL with the kind of power it vests in judges which actually empowers them to act on their biases (aesthetic, anti-poor or otherwise) and that too with a free hand in a most expansive manner, unconstrained by technicalities and rules of adjudication", he says.
This is a must read to understand the politics behind PILs and their impacts. The general academic discourse doesn't go beyond the celebrated PILs. This seminal work exposes the ground impact of many headline making PILs.
Hope there will be a sequel to this, examining some recent PIL trends, such as use of 'ambush PILs' to secure legitimacy in politically sensitive issues.
https://twitter.com/manuvichar/status...
October 9, 2019
Intensive research work,detailing pre and post emergency period,debates in constituent assembly,procedural lapse by respected big brothers.
Put up a balanced view overall.
Put up a balanced view overall.
May 5, 2024
Mind blowing read!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews