INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Roopali Singh, Yugank Goel, Aayushi Rout and Sushanth Sanjay, Vritti Law Partners
Vritti Law Partners LLP 62 First Floor
Todarmal Road Bengali Market New Delhi – 110001 India Tel: +011 4553 0441 Email: contactus@vritti.law Web: vrittipartners.com
1. Policy Development of Collective Redress/Class Action Mechanisms 1.1 History and Policy Drivers of the Legislative Regime India’s collective redress framework is not consoli- dated under a single statute but is dispersed across various private and public laws. It has developed incrementally through a combination of legislative innovation and judicial interpretation. The evolving class action landscape reflects India’s constitutional commitment to access to justice, public accountabil- ity, and the protection of diffuse rights within a com- plex socio-economic context. Colonial Origins: The Representative Suit under the Code of Civil Procedure The first step in India’s collective redress regime was taken through the introduction of “representative suits” in Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Proce- dure, 1908 (“CPC”) in 1908. Borrowed from the nine- teenth-century English equity practice, representative suits allowed “one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of others” having the same interest. At the time, the legislative intent was guided by the practical efficiency of representative suits in preventing dupli- cation of litigation and ensuring uniform outcomes, rather than social reform. However, over time, judicial interpretation supported by Law Commission recom- mendations in 1964 and 1973 expanded its reach to collective civil grievances beyond identical causes of action.
Post-Independence: Constitutionalism and Public Law Innovation The second phase in India’s collective redress journey began in the late 1970s, when the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), confronted by widespread poverty, illiteracy, and administrative apathy, expand- ed the reach of justice through judicial interpretation. In seminal cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, Bihar , 1979 AIR 1369 and S.P. Gupta v Union of India , AIR 1982 SC 149, the Supreme Court recognised that access to justice is a fundamental constitutional right and that the traditional adversarial system failed to protect the rights of the poor and marginalised. The evolution continued through Band- hua Mukti Morcha v Union of India , AIR 1984 SC 302, where the Supreme Court liberalised the doctrine of locus standi, allowing any public-spirited individual to bring an action on behalf of affected communi- ties. This doctrine crystallised into Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”), India’s contribution to global legal thought leadership. PILs converted the judiciary from a passive adjudicator into an active guardian of social justice, addressing issues such as prison conditions, environmental pollution, bonded labour, and gender discrimination, amongst others. Economic Liberalisation and Corporate Accountability The third phase unfolded after India’s economic liber- alisation in the 1990s, when India’s growing markets, expanding corporate sector, and global investment flows brought new forms of collective harm. Scan- dals such as the Satyam Computer Services fraud (2009) exposed how investors and depositors were
146 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook