Orissa High Court Justice Champions PIL as 'Social Action Litigation' at Patna Law University
In a significant address at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU) in Patna, Justice S Murlidhar of the Orissa High Court reframed public interest litigation (PIL) as "social action litigation," emphasizing its historical role as a crucial bridge between the judiciary and India's marginalized communities. Delivering a talk titled "Contours of incomplete justice: subaltern voices, constitutional promises and the politics of adjudication" at the CNLU Book Club on Tuesday, Justice Murlidhar highlighted how PIL has transformed access to justice by enabling courts to address systemic injustices that often fall outside traditional adversarial legal frameworks.
Transformative Role and Contemporary Concerns
Justice Murlidhar meticulously traced the evolution of PIL, noting its profound impact in expanding justice accessibility for disadvantaged groups across India. He pointed out that this legal mechanism has allowed courts to intervene in matters affecting the poor, oppressed, and voiceless sections of society, creating pathways for constitutional promises to reach those at the margins. However, the distinguished jurist simultaneously issued a strong caution against the gradual dilution and potential misuse of PIL, warning that without careful stewardship, this powerful tool could lose its transformative potential.
The Inevitable Politics of Law and Judicial Context
During his comprehensive address, Justice Murlidhar addressed the complex relationship between law and politics, asserting that "the political entanglement of law is neither new nor avoidable." He stressed that this intersection must be openly acknowledged and critically examined by legal professionals and students alike. "Law inevitably performs a political function," Justice Murlidhar declared, urging the assembled law students to approach judicial decisions with a nuanced understanding of their broader socio-political context rather than viewing them through purely technical or doctrinal lenses.
Multiple Lenses for Legal Understanding
Emphasizing the necessity of multidimensional legal analysis, Justice Murlidhar stated that "the judiciary and legal system cannot be meaningfully evaluated unless we are attentive to those at the margins." To illustrate this principle, he referenced court staff including ushers and other functionaries whose lived experiences within the legal system might offer crucial insights that typically remain invisible during conventional doctrinal analysis. This perspective, he suggested, enriches our understanding of how justice systems actually function beyond formal procedures.
Stark Reality: Formal Authority Versus Social Inequality
Justice Murlidhar powerfully highlighted the persistent disjuncture between formal legal authority and entrenched social realities by quoting a survivor of the Kumher massacre: "All the judges of the Supreme Court do not have the power of even our local havildar." This striking observation, he explained, reflects how structural inequalities can stubbornly persist despite constitutional guarantees and judicial pronouncements. The remark underscores the gap between theoretical legal power and practical social authority that continues to challenge India's justice delivery system.
The session was chaired by CNLU Vice-Chancellor Faizan Mustafa, who facilitated the engaging discussion following Justice Murlidhar's thought-provoking presentation. The event brought together legal scholars, students, and faculty members for a deep examination of justice, constitutionalism, and the ongoing challenges facing India's legal landscape.
