DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRIT AND PIL

Differences between a Writ and PIL:

#1. Writs are filed by institutions or individuals for benefit in their own cases, whereas, PIL is an application that is filed by any citizen for easing out any undue botheration or inconvenience faced by the public at large. Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or any act. It has been interpreted by a judge to consider the intent of public at large. Following are the various areas where a PIL can be filed against State/Central Govt./Municipal authorities or any private party.

(a) If there’s abuse of elementary human rights of the underprivileged.

(b) If there’s inappropriate content or conduct of government policy.

(c) To force municipal authorities to accomplish a public duty.

(d) If there’s violation of religious rights or any basic fundamental rights.

#2. Writs are issued by the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 and Article 139. Writs can be issued by High Court of the States under Articles 226. On the other hand, PIL’s are applications/writs that are filed by any citizen for easing out inconvenience faced by the public at large and they are not defined in any Statute.

#3. The process of filing writ is expensive, complicated and time-consuming. But in PIL, the process is cheap and simplified. Also in PIL, the rule of locus standi, that is, the right to appear an action appear in a court, is relaxed, which is not the case with Writs. In writs. the locus standi is followed.

#4. In Writs, the evidence is strictly examined, whereas, in PIL, the evidence is narrow and doesn’t involve as many technicalities as there are in the Writs. For example; PILs can be presented by anybody whether they have suffered or not. Other people can also file no matter if they have an interest in it or not. While Writs can be filed only by the aggrieved party.

#5. The subject for which the action is demanded is of public interest in PIL, and the judgement and view of a judge are very crucial as it concerns the national welfare. In Writ, the subject matter is of private interest, and judges work is just to examine the evidence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY

Distinction between the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court has held that the distinction between the offence of abetment under the second clause of section 107 and that of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is that, in the former offence a mere combination of persons or agreement between them is not enough.An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for; in the latter offencethe mere agreement is enough if the agreement is to commit an offence.Section 120-A may be distinguished from Section 34 of I.P.C. The points of distinction between the two are as follows: —Section 34 (Common intention):1. Section 34 applies when a criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all the offenders. 2. Section 34 is a procedural rule; it lays down a principle to determine the criminal liability of persons more than one in the commission of a crime but does not create a subs
Read more

Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Explained

Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence: This section protects the person making statement during police investigation under duress or inducement. The Code allows police officer to record statements of witnesses with a view to facilitating investigation of the offence. But if such statements are made under duress or inducement, they are rendered inadmissible in evidence because they cannot be said to be free and fair statements made voluntarily. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court, the object of Section 162 is “to protect the accused both against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.” It cannot be used for corroborating a witness but it can certainly be used to contradict him by a police statement. Where a person appears as a defence witness in a trial, his former statement made before the police cannot be used for contradicting him because it would be against the accepted norms of justice to allow a witness to be contradicted by a s
Read more