>Citation bot at 21:27, 8 April 2021

2021-04-08T21:27:52Z

New page

{{Use Indian English|date=September 2015}}
{{Infobox organization
| name = Centre for Public Interest Litigation
| image =
| caption =
| key_people = [[V. M. Tarkunde]], [[Prashant Bhushan]]
| type = [[Non-governmental organization|NGO]]
| region_served = India
}}
The '''Centre for Public Interest Litigation''' (CPIL) is an [[India]]n [[non-governmental organisation]] that conducts litigation on matters of public interest. The CPIL was established by late Justice [[V. M. Tarkunde]], a former judge of the [[Supreme Court of India]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://indiawires.com/7509/news/national/copy-of-supreme-court-verdict-on-2g-licence-cancellation/
|date=February 2, 2012
|title=Copy of Supreme Court Verdict on 2G Licence Cancellation
|work=IndiaWires
|access-date=2012-04-26
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204140122/http://indiawires.com/7509/news/national/copy-of-supreme-court-verdict-on-2g-licence-cancellation/
|archive-date=February 4, 2012
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>

==Background==
In India, anybody can file a [[Public Interest Litigation]] (PIL) suit on behalf of a group of people whose rights are being affected, typically one of the weaker segments of the community. The PILs are filed in a high court against state or public authorities that have caused a public wrong or injury through some act or omission. The person filing the PIL does not have to have a direct interest in the suit.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.karmayog.org/pil/pil_10720.htm
|title=Introduction to Public Interest Litigation
|website=Karmayog
|access-date=2012-04-26
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005010030/http://www.karmayog.org/pil/pil_10720.htm
|archive-date=2013-10-05
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
The CPIL was founded in the late 1980s by V.M. Tarkunde, who was also the founder of the [[People's Union for Civil Liberties]].<ref name=Rautray20110304/>
V.M. Tarkunde was the first president.
Other founder members were senior advocates including [[Fali Sam Nariman]], [[Shanti Bhushan]], [[Anil Divan]], [[Rajinder Sachar]] and [[Colin Gonsalves]].<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.elaw.org/system/files/nuclear+writ.doc/
|title=PIL FOR DECLARING NUCLEAR LIABILITY ACT OF 2010 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
|work=Elaw
|year=2011
|access-date=2012-04-26
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511054949/http://www.elaw.org/system/files/nuclear+writ.doc/
|archive-date=2015-05-11
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>

==Sample cases==
In October 1997, the [[Delhi High Court]] heard a CPIL petition over the award of contracts to [[Enron]] and [[Reliance Industries]] develop the [[Panna-Mukta oilfield]], and issued notices to the involved companies and government organisations. [[Prashant Bhushan]] acted as advocate for CPIL. The petition claimed an inquiry was justified on the basis of testimony that Reliance had bribed the minister of petroleum, [[Satish Sharma]], to get the award.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.rediff.com/business/oct/14panna.htm
|work=Rediff
|date=October 14, 1997
|title=Notices to Centre, CAG, Enron, Reliance on Panna-Mukta oilfield
|access-date=2012-04-30}}</ref>

In 2002, the CPIL asked for scrutiny of a proposed Freedom of Information bill to determine whether the bill gave citizens sufficient power to find out about governance. The government had been reluctant to recognise that the people had a right to know, and after the CPIL filing it rushed through the bill without correcting known defects.<ref>{{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=saXIavbvg_UC&pg=PA317 |page=317
|title=Contemporary Debates In Public Administration
|editor=Alka Dhameja
|publisher=PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. |year=2004 |isbn=812032403X}}</ref>

The CPIL won a major victory in 2003 when the Supreme Court restrained the Central government from privatising [[Hindustan Petroleum]] and [[Bharat Petroleum]] without the approval of Parliament.<ref name=Rautray20110304/>
As counsel for the CPIL, Rajinder Sachar said that the only way to disinvest in the companies would be to repeal or amend the Acts by which they were nationalised in the 1970s.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=d4KUbiQ-9KoC&pg=PA301 |page=301
|title=Two Score and Ten: My Experiences in Government
|first=G. V. |last=Ramakrishna
|publisher=Academic Foundation |year=2004 |isbn=8171883397}}</ref>
As a result, the government would need a majority in both houses to push through any privatisation.<ref>{{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZBuUNzIgJjAC&pg=PA136 |page=136
|title=Privatisation And Labour Restructuring
|author=Gopal Ganesh
|publisher=Academic Foundation |year=2008 |isbn=978-8171886340}}</ref>

In October 2004, the CPIL filed a petition with the Supreme Court in which they challenged a clause of the constitution related to reservation benefits. Under this clause, such benefits only went to people who professed faith in Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism. Specifically at issue was the question of [[Scheduled Caste]]s being deprived of benefits if they converted to Christianity.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

In 2007, [[Prashant Bhushan]] of the CPIL filed a petition with the [[Delhi High Court]] to investigate whether there had been kickbacks in the [[Scorpene Deal scam|2005 Scorpene submarine deal]]. The High Court took a strong line with the investigating agency, saying "We feel dissatisfied with that you've done so far. If you've tried to shield someone, then we will come down very heavily on you".<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SjEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26
|date=21 Jan 2008 |volume=48 |issue=3 |journal=Outlook
|title=A Sea of Subterfuge
|author=Saikat Datta
|access-date=2012-04-26}}</ref>

The CPIL won another victory in 2011 with a challenge to the appointment of [[P. J. Thomas (Indian administrative officer)|P. J. Thomas]] as Central Vigilance Commissioner.<ref name=Rautray20110304/>
On 3 March 2011 the Supreme Court held that Thomas was not eligible since he was facing a criminal case in Kerala.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-p-j-thomas-as-vigilance-chief/757204/
|title=Supreme Court strikes down P J Thomas as vigilance chief
|work=[[The Indian Express]]
|author=Krishnadas Rajagopal
|date=Mar 3, 2011
|access-date=2012-04-26}}</ref>

===2G Spectrum Case===
{{Further|2G spectrum case}}

The CPIL is best known for taking the lead in filing a suit against the [[Government of India]] for [[2G spectrum case|irregularities in a major award of spectrum]] for 2G mobile telephones.
The CPIL petition alleged that the government had lost $15.53 billion by issuing spectrum in 2008 based on 2001 prices, and by not following a competitive bidding process.<ref>{{cite journal
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qByYM-awD_MC&pg=PA6 |page=6
|journal=India Telecom Monthly Newsletter |date=October 2010
|editor=Hui Pan
|title=ED tells SC that 2G spectrum scam probe is underway
|publisher=Information Gatekeepers Inc}}</ref>
In February 2012, the Supreme Court decided in their favor and declared the allocation of spectrum had been illegal.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.keralaw.com/judgments/case-number/writ-petition-civil/wpcno423of2010-centreforpublicinterestlitigationandothersvsunionofindiaandothers
|date=February 2, 2012
|title=Dr. Subramanian Swamy ...Petitioner versus Union of India and others ...Respondents
|work=Keralaw
|access-date=2012-04-26
}}{{dead link|date=November 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

==See also==
* [[2G spectrum case]]

==References==
{{reflist |refs=
<ref name=Rautray20110304>{{cite web
|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110304/jsp/nation/story_13665807.jsp
|work=The Telegraph
|title=Feather in cap for graft fighters
|author=SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY AND PHEROZE L. VINCENT
|date=March 4, 2011
|access-date=2012-04-26}}</ref>
}}

{{Non-government Organizations in India}}

[[Category:Social issues in India]]
[[Category:Legal organisations based in India]]
[[Category:Anti-corruption non-governmental organizations]]
[[Category:Year of establishment missing]]
[[Category:1980s establishments in India]]

Centre for Public Interest Litigation - Revision history

>Citation bot at 21:27, 8 April 2021