Public interest litigation: a species of direct democracy and good governance

Abstract

In the ancient Greek city states people have participated in decision making known as direct democracy. The expansion of population over time made this mode of direct decision making impossible and so representative democracy was born. It evolved to have the separation of powers; legislative, executive and judicial.The separation of powers of the State enables the judiciary keeps the executive and administrative functions in check. The courts however, have restricted the right to intervene to those persons whose interests were directly affected rather than allow busy bodies wanting fame and fan fare waste the time of court. Thus while decisions of the executive and measures taken by the administration affect the rights of individuals on matters such as land acquisition, licencing, issuing of permits, taxation, and the nationalization of industries, only those affected and not the public could petition court.The present Constitution is a step in facilitating direct democracy. The gradual willingness of the judiciary to allow the public to intervene in matters that they would traditionally have been shut out of, have enabled both the courts and the public to affect the decision making process and its implementation. The Eppawala Phosphate mining case, the Southern Expressway case, the Waters Edge case, cancellation of privatization of Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation, the cancellation of sale of Lanka Marine Service to John Keels Holdings and de-merging of North and East Provincial Councils are among notable instances of public interest litigation. This paper will analyze the expansion of public interest litigation, the principles of good governance propounded by court including the public trust doctrine, and the impact it has had on administrative and policy decision making.

A plea for survival: Can the return to eco-centrism strengthen the legal protection of nature in Sri Lanka?

“…119 Public Interest Litigation, therefore, allows 'third parties to bring actions on a wide variety of matters on the basis that it affects their rights and the rights of the public at large'. 120 However, this recognition of the principles of public interest litigation and the public trust doctrine has always been tainted with an anthropocentric flavour. The Bulankulama case 121 decided in 2000, arose out of a proposed agreement sought to be entered into by the then government in Sri Lanka to lease out a phosphate mine situated in the Eppawela area to a foreign company named Freeport Mac Moran of USA, which marked a turning point in the history of environmental litigation in the country, can be cited as an example.…”

Protecting Human Rights in the Light of Industrial Water Pollution: Sri Lankan Law and Obligations under International Law

“…In analyzing the efficacy of the existing body of human rights in Sri Lanka to fight against industrial water pollution, it is vital to examine the developments taking place with regard to the rules of standing and how they affect the ability to invoke fundamental rights against harmful industrial wastewater management practices. The judiciary in Sri Lanka originally recognized the standing of the related parties to petition court, especially in instances when the person whose rights are affected was incarcerated or dead (Goonetilleke, 2014). This approach was adopted in the cases, Somawathie v Weerasinghe (1990), Sriyani Silva v Iddamalgoda, OIC, Police Station Payagala and others (2003) and Lamahewage Lal v Officer in Charge, Minor Offences, Seeduwa Police Station (2005.…”

“…An important development in this regard is the ability of third parties to bring actions on a wide variety of matters on the basis that it affects their rights and the rights of the public at large (Goonetilleke, 2014). It is through this expanded standing that most of the environmental rights cases came before the court.…”