This Article is written by Sirin Sabana a 3rd year BALLB Student at Heritage Law College, 5th Semester, An Intern under Legal Vidhiya
ABSTRACT
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a body of law governing civil litigation procedures in India, which is a principal of this body. The direct applicability of this body to the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been limited because it is primarily constituted under the constitutional writ jurisdiction of both High Courts and the Supreme Courts under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, if it is looked at the rigid procedural framework of the CPC in the same manner as ordinary civil suits are bound, PIL proceedings are not bound to the civil suits.
Nevertheless, the principles underlying CPC play a continuous and significant role in PIL jurisprudence. Some provisions, like Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, deal with the representative suit, which aligns closely with the native and the objective of PILs. Similarly, doctrines embodied in the CPC, such as the res judicata (Section 11) and the process of abuse prevention, are also applied by the courts to PILs to maintain judicial discipline and to avoid multiplicity of this proceeding. At the same time, under Section 80 of CPC, which states a strict requirement of mandatory notice, are generally held inapplicable to PILs. Such a requirement may defeat the urgent and remedial purpose of public interest litigation.
The relationship between the CPC and PIL is therefore one of procedural guidance rather than strict applicability, which ensures a balance of flexibility between them and also access to justice, and the orderly administration of judicial process.
Keywords
Public Interest Litigation, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Writ Jurisdiction, Representative Suit, Order I Rule 8 CPC, Constitutional Remedies, Res Judicata
INTRODUCTION
The term CPC stands as the Code of Civil Procedure, which not only defines and amends law but also consolidates it. The Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law that deals with the administration of civil proceedings in India. The main objective of CPC is to facilitate justice. It is always rightly observed that procedural law is always subservient and is in aid of justice. If once the proceedings are initiated under it, all the procedures, like the rights and remedies of the political parties, will be governed by the Code. If, in any case, the law prescribes that the procedure for the particular thing to be done, then it has to be done in only the manner prescribed. The Code of Civil Procedure is a complete code itself consisting of Sections 1 to 158 at the first part and Order I to LI with the ‘Appendices’ mentioned at the first schedule and with the ‘Forms’ at the second part.
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, plays a very significant role in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The “Representative Suit”, where the filing of suit is mechanised under the CPC. According to Section 12 under the Code of Civil Procedure, Any person can file a suit for their own benefit as well as on behalf of others. The representative party must carry the direct interest in that suit the accounts must be actively different. In any case, if the suit filed is frivolous, or where the suit is unlawful or vexatious, the court may not permit to carry the further proceedings of the suit. The court also carries or holds the power to permit the withdrawal of the suit, if it is not in the public interest to proceed with it.
The Phrase that “CPC is purely procedural” implies that the code that it does not create itself, neither confers nor defines legal rights. Rather, the enforcement of rights is derived from the Substantive laws, such as from the Hindu Succession Act, the Indian Contract Act, or the Transfer of Property Act.
HOW DOES CPC IS RELATED TO PIL?
According to CPC Order I Rule 8 allows for the filing of the representative suit, where more than one person can be sued or defended on behalf of the other person who shares the common interest in the matter. This is an exceptional rule for all the parties that are required in general to be individually joined in a suit. The Representative suit requires the court’s permission and requires the court to give prior notice to all the interested parties, either personally or via public advertisement, as directed by the court.
The Representative suit stands differently from public interest litigation because the prerequisite of locus standi stands to be failed, and is not required for the individual to have an interest in the suit, assuming that the matter in issue stated at the suit influences the overall population.
The word ‘public interest’ is something or the other where the general society, or the community overall, has some financial interest or some interest by which their lawful freedoms and liabilities are impacted. Even though a person is not hurt physically or mentally, they can file a petition in Public Interest Litigation if they are socially or spiritually motivated. In this case the individual moving towards the court for redressal, or public wrong or public injury has an adequate interest in the procedure and is acting Bonafide which is not really for individual gain or private benefit or political inspiration.
PIL is typically filed under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction granted by Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, whereas a regular civil suit is generally initiated to adjudicate and enforce the private rights between specific, identifiable parties. The courts have greater procedural flexibility and can treat a mere letter or a postcard as a writ petition to initiate proceedings. In Regular civil suit which are governed by the detailed and often it is time-consuming procedure outlined in the CPC, involving formal pleadings, discovery, evidence submission, and also the trial proceedings.
In the landmark case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 1984, this case was filed as a regular civil suit under the CPC the workers initiated the action formally themselves, likely facing significant procedural hurdles and resource constraints that make legal recourse virtually impossible [1]. The PIL mechanism, with its flexible approach, allowed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of a large disadvantaged group.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECTION 80 CPC) AND PIL:
Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure mandates that suing the government or any other public officer for an done in their official capacity, a formal notice has to be sent detailing about the claim, and has to wait 2 months for them to respond or for expiry of the period or can be settled before filing the lawsuit, this rule aims to prevent unnecessary litigation, save public resources, and allow officials review the time and solve the issues, also by promoting fairness and efficiency, though for some exceptions exist of urgent matters requires court permission.
According to the Indian law, before filing a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) or a writ petition, it is generally not necessary to give any notice to the government authorities or public servants. However, the requirement can be based upon the nature of the case, the court and also the issue involved. PIL is a mechanism through which a citizen can seek intervention in matters of public interest. In PIL cases, the general requirement of giving prior notice is not necessary, but in some cases often involves matters of large public concern, and the court may entertain such matters or cases without a formal notice being served. Apart from this, the Writ petitions, such as those filed under the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 226 in High Courts, are used to enforce fundamental rights, and it seeks remedies against any government actions. In a writ petition, there is no such thing as issuing a prior notice before a lawsuit is filed, there is no strict requirement, but in some specific cases might necessitate it.
For example, a large chemical factory is illegally discharging toxic chemicals water into a major river, which is causing great harm to the aquatic life immediately, and the drinking water supply is for nearby villages. So, in this particular issue, if any particular individual or any NGO or concerned citizen files a PIL or writ petition, they have to give a prior notice to the government authorities 2 months before filing the case under Section 80 of CPC. The urgency and the public nature of the environmental harm necessitate immediate judicial intervention by overriding the procedural formality of the CPC provision. Since the language refers specifically to the suit against the government officer, under section 80 it is generally understood that the requirement of sending a legal notice under this section of CPC which applies to civil suit and not to the writ petition or PILs. Writ Petition and PILs are considered as distinct legal remedies and have their own procedural requirements.
WHAT IS RES JUDICATA AND CPC IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PILS):
The term ‘Res Judicata’ states it is a legal principle preventing the same parties from re-litigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court in a prior, final judgement, ensuring judicial efficiency, fairness and finality by barring identical or substantially similar claims. Its Latin term states “a matter judged”. In Res Judicata, no court has the power to file any suit or issue in the matter in which it is directly and substantially in issue to a former suit between the same parties, or between whom they or any of them has made the claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequently raised and had heard that it has been finally decided by such Court. In Explanation VI, it is said that where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public or a private right that is claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such a right shall, for all purposes of this section, is claimed and deemed under the persons so litigating. Thus, according to Explanation VI to Section 11 under the Code of Civil Procedure states clearly and show that the principle of res judicata would apply to a bona fide in public interest litigation (PIL), which implies that if the previous litigation was a bona fide PIL in respect of a right which was common and was claimed others, then the decision in such previous PIL may act as a res judicata for any later PIL.
In a landmark case of Brobston v. Darby Borough, the plaintiff Brobston was injured while driving a vehicle on a public highway in the Borough of Darby, as the street was occupied by the transit company, the steering wheel of the machine operated by the driver was pulled, so this resulted the injury to the complainant. Therefore, a suit was filed against the street railway in the Court of Philadelphia for the recovery of his damages. The negligence was proved to be contributory negligence from both parties, so the judgment was in favour of the defendant. Later again, the incident occurred in the name of the same defendant, and the legal question involved as to what the rights of the plaintiff were in this case, but they refused the facts which were proven by the counsel. Hence, a nonsuit was entered because of the earlier judgment. The plaintiff should have been permitted to call the witness, but no merit was seen so far. Therefore, the facts are essential for the legal determination of liability before the court, and the consent of both parties is essentially needed.
CONCLUSION
The Code of Civil Procedure is itself not the principal statute under which Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filed. Under the Constitutional writ jurisdiction, PILs are typically filed under Article 32 in the Supreme Court and Article 226 in the High Courts, generally for the enforcement of public or constitutional rights when there is a matter of public concern and the issues may not affect the petitioner personally. PILs and Writ petitions do not fall directly under the ambit of procedural rules of the CPC, and the filing and disposal of PILs are governed by the constitutional principles, and the courts apply their respective rules rather than strictly by CPC procedural requirements.
Nevertheless, the PILs through out its provisions for representative suits plays a important part by a supportive and analogous role, under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides that a law for “representative suits”, allows more than one person to sue or defend on behalf of a large group who share a common interest in the subjects matter of the dispute. This provision was designed to avoid multiplicity of litigation when the same interest has arisen between many persons and thus reduces the burden on courts and litigants. The court must be satisfied by the parties that they represent in numerous cases that they carry a common interest, so that, for a representative suit, the court’s permission is obtained or directed, and the notice is issued to all those concerned. A decree in such a suit binds all persons whose interests were represented and can operate as a res judicata on them.
Moreover, the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, such as the doctrine of res judicata (Section 11 of CPC), can influence implicitly how the PILs are treated when similar issues have been addressed in earlier litigation. Courts have held that once a bona fide litigation regarding a common right has been conducted and decided, similar subsequent litigation may be barred to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of process, which reflects CPC-inspired procedural fairness even in constitutional writ matters. As Section 80 of CPC provides notice to the government before suing the state as the procedural obligations, and the ordinary civil state, but it does not apply to the PILs and to the courts, which focus on the borders of public concerns rather than the strict compliance with CPC timelines and forms.
In essence, if it is looked upon, PIL is primarily a product of constitutional jurisprudence and judicial activism, which is intended to widen access to justice and therefore enforce the public rights, the CPC contributes by providing some procedural concepts and analogies, especially through the representative suits that assist courts in the administrating process and bringing effectiveness and fairness to PILs without undermining the exceptional nature of the public interest litigation as it is distinct from the ordinary civil litigation.
REFERENCES
- Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), https://share.google/SsiftkEbhbtkgDquR (last visited Dec. 20, 2025)
- Origin and Meaning of Public Interest Litigation in India, https://share.google/Jqk2k3gualYRWRP5X (last visited Dec. 20, 2025)
- The Code of Civil Procedure, § Section 80, No. 5, Imperial Legislative Council, 1908 IN.
- Writ petition and public interest litigation, https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/writ-petition-and-public-interest-litigation (last visited Dec. 21, 2025).
- Code of Civil Procedure applicability to writ petition/PIL, https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/code-of-civil-procedure-applicability-to-writ-petition-pil (last visited Dec. 21, 2025)
- Origin and Meaning of Public Interest Litigation in India, https://corpbiz.io/learning/origin-and-meaning-of-public-interest-litigation (last visited Dec. 22, 2025).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
