Editing Class action (section)

===India===
{{Main|Public Interest Litigation}}
{{See also|Constitution of India|Judiciary of India}}

Decisions of the [[Indian Supreme Court]] in the 1980s loosened strict ''[[locus standi]]'' requirements to permit the filing of suits on behalf of rights of deprived sections of society by public-minded individuals or bodies. Although not strictly "class action litigation" as it is understood in American law, [[public interest litigation]] arose out of the wide powers of judicial review granted to the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts under [[s:Constitution of India/Part III#Article 32 .7BRemedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.7D|Article 32]] and Article 226 of the [[Constitution of India]]. The sort of remedies sought from courts in public interest litigation go beyond mere award of damages to all affected groups, and have sometimes (controversially) gone on to include Court monitoring of the implementation of legislation and even the framing of guidelines in the absence of [[Parliament of India|Parliamentary legislation]].<ref name="pil">{{cite web|url=http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pil.htm |title=PIL A Boon Or A Bane |publisher=Legal Service India |access-date=2013-10-04}}</ref><ref name="let">{{cite web |url=http://www.karmayog.org/pil/pil_10720.htm |title=Introduction to Public Interest Litigation |publisher=Karmayog |access-date=2013-10-04 |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>

However, this innovative jurisprudence did not help the victims of the [[Bhopal disaster|Bhopal gas tragedy]],{{citation needed|date=February 2013}} who were unable to fully prosecute a class-action litigation (as understood in the American sense) against [[Union Carbide]] due to procedural rules that would make such litigation impossible to conclude and unwieldy to carry out. Instead, the [[Government of India]] exercised its right of ''[[parens patriae]]'' to appropriate all the claims of the victims and proceeded to litigate on their behalf, first in the New York courts and later, in the Indian courts. Ultimately, the matter was settled between the Union of India and Union Carbide (in a settlement overseen by the Supreme Court of India) for a sum of {{INRConvert|760|c}} as a complete settlement of all claims of all victims for all time to come.

Public interest litigation has now broadened in scope to cover larger and larger groups of citizens who may be affected by government inaction. Examples of this trend include the conversion of all public transport in the city of [[Delhi]] from diesel engines to [[compressed natural gas]] engines on the basis of the orders of the [[Delhi High Court]]; the monitoring of forest use by the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that there is no unjustified loss of forest cover; and the directions mandating the disclosure of assets of electoral candidates for the Houses of Parliament and State Assembly.<ref name="Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Another">
{{cite news
 | title =    Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms & Another
 | first = M. B. |last=Shah
 | publisher = [[Supreme Court of India]] Judgement on Civil Appeal No. 7178 of 2001
 | url =     http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ElectoralLaws/judgements/LandmarkJudgementsVolIV.pdf
 | date =     2 May 2002
}}</ref><ref name="Our Achievements">{{cite web|title=Our Achievements|url=http://adrindia.org/about-adr/our-achievements|publisher=ADR|access-date=2 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090629210134/http://www.adrindia.org/achievements/achievements.asp|archive-date=29 June 2009}}</ref>

The Supreme Court has observed that the PIL has tended to become a means to gain publicity or obtain relief contrary to constitutionally valid legislation and policy. Observers point out that many High Courts and certain Supreme Court judges are reluctant to entertain PILs filed by [[non-governmental organization]]s and activists, citing concerns of [[separation of powers]] and [[parliamentary sovereignty]].