Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:30:32.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVISITING THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS ADJUDICATION: THE NEED FOR A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND RESTRAINT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2014

Anashri Pillay
Anashri Pillay*
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Law, University of Durham, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Indian Constitution embraces economic and social rights as directive principles of state policy, ostensibly insulated from judicial review. The Supreme Court's interpretation of traditional civil and political rights to include economic and social guarantees has been praised by academics and activists keen to advance the cause of justiciable economic and social rights. In recent commentary, however, the extent to which the court's jurisprudence furthers the goal of increasing access to goods such as health care, housing, food and water for India's poor, is questioned. This article reconsiders the court's record in this area. It suggests that a more realistic assessment of the court's jurisprudence is necessary and draws on the South African experience of economic and social rights adjudication to argue for more serious engagement with factors that inform the level of judicial activism or restraint applied in the cases.

Keywords

adjudicationdirective principles of state policyeconomic and social rightsIndiaSouth Africa
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 385 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See eg Fredman, S, Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford University Press 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch 1; and Pieterse, M, ‘Coming to Terms with Judicial Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights (2004) 20 South African Journal on Human Rights 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 389–99 especially. For a detailed examination of the arguments for and against judicial enforcement of ESR, see Jheelan, N, ‘The Enforceability of Socio-Economic Rights’ (2007) 2 EHRLR 146Google Scholar. See also G van Bueren, ‘Including the Excluded: The Case for an Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights Act’ (2002) PL 456.

2 South Africa, Malawi, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Romania are examples here.

3 The attitude of ordinary citizens to the Indian Supreme Court is far less clear. See J Krishnan, ‘Scholarly Discourse, Public Perceptions and the Cementing of Norms: The Case of the Indian Supreme Court and a Plea for Research’ (2007) William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper Series Working Paper No 77, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1003811>.

4 Jain, M, ‘The Supreme Court and Fundamental Rights’ in Verma, SK and Kusum, SK (eds), Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach (OUP 2004) 1, 16Google Scholar.

5 See eg Sripati, V, ‘Human rights in India Fifty years after Independence’ (1997) 26 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 93Google Scholar; de Villiers, B, ‘Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights: The Indian Experience’ (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Rights 29Google Scholar; Meer, S, ‘Litigating Fundamental Rights: Rights Litigation and Social Action Litigation in India: A Lesson for South Africa’ (1993) 9 South African Journal on Human Rights 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirby, M, ‘Judicial Activism’ (1997) 23 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 1224Google Scholar. For some examples of later commentary, see Subramanian, G, ‘Contribution of Indian Judiciary to Social Justice Principles Underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (2008) 50(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 593Google Scholar; Neuborne, B, ‘The Supreme Court of India’ (2003) 1 ICON 476Google Scholar; and Ibe, S, ‘Beyond Justiciability: Realising the Promise of Socio-Economic Rights in Nigeria’ (2007) 7 African Human Rights Law Journal 225Google Scholar, 233–8 in particular. These writers are not uncritical of the Supreme Court's record but they are overwhelmingly positive about the court's independence and creativity.

6 See eg Bilchitz, D, Poverty and Fundamental Rights: The Justification and Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights (OUP 2007)Google Scholar ch 5; and M Pieterse (n 1) 407.

7 See further Pillay, A, ‘Economic and Social Rights Adjudication: Developing Principles of Judicial Restraint in South Africa and the United Kingdom’ (2013) PL 606Google Scholar.

8 Cottrell, J and Ghai, Y, ‘The Role of the Courts in the Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ in Ghai, Y and Cottrell, J (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Practice: The Role of Judges in Implementing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Interights 2004) 85Google Scholar.

9 For some of the debates preceding the drafting of the 1996 Constitution in South Africa, see Haysom, N, ‘Constitutionalism, Majoritarian Democracy and Socio-Economic Rights’ (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Right 451Google Scholar; Mureinik, E, ‘Beyond a Charter of Luxuries: Economic Rights in the Constitution’ (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Rights 464Google Scholar; and Davis, D, ‘The Case against the Inclusion of Socio-Economic Demands in a Bill of Rights Except As Directive Principles’ (1992) 8 South African Journal on Human Rights 475CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the drafting history of the directive principles of state policy in the Indian Constitution, see Austin, G, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (OUP 1966)Google Scholar ch 3.

10 See art 37 of the Constitution.

11 See Paschim Banga Ket Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37; Consumer Education and Research Centre v India (1995) 3 SCC 42; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India and others 1984 SCR (2) 67.

12 See Olga Tellis and others v Bombay Municipal Corporation and others 1985 SCR Supl (2) 51; Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v Delhi Administration, Delhi and others 1992 SCR (1) 565.

13 See Mohini Jain v State of Kerala and others (1992) 3 SCC 666. Later, the court clarified the position in Mohini Jain by holding that art 14 gave rise to a right to primary education—see Unnikrishnan v State of Andra Pradesh 1993 (1) SCC 645. See also M Jain (n 4) 32–3. See further Kothari, J, ‘Social Rights and the Indian Constitution’ (2004) 2 Law, Social Justice and Global Development JournalGoogle Scholar, available at <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/2004_2/kothari/>.

14 See Maneka Gandhi v Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 at 670–1; and Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of India and others 1981 SCR (2) 516.

15 Francis Mullin (n 14) 528–9.

16 (n 12).

17 Olga Tellis (n 12) 73 and 83.

18 Olga Tellis (n 12) 63–4.

19 Olga Tellis (n 12) 80.

20 Olga Tellis (n 12) 79–80.

21 Olga Tellis (n 12) 80–1 and 85.

22 Olga Tellis (n 12) 87–8.

23 Olga Tellis (n 12) 86–7.

24 Olga Tellis (n 12) 94.

25 Olga Tellis (n 12) 95–6.

26 Olga Tellis (n 12) 96.

27 Olga Tellis (n 12) 98.

28 See Robinson, N, ‘Expanding judiciaries: India and the rise of the good governance court’ (2009) 8(1) Washington University Global Studies Law Review 1Google Scholar, 43; Sathe, S, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (OUP 2002) 118Google Scholar.

29 Scott, C and Macklem, P, ‘Constitutional Ropes of Sand or Justiciable Guarantees? Social Rights in a N New South African Constitution’ (1992) 141(1) UPaLRev 1Google Scholar, 121.

30 Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).

31 Order dated 26 September 2000, available at <http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2000/14.html>.

32 See Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and others 2009 (9) BCLR 847 (CC); 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC); and City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (CC) 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC) at para 104.

33 See further Pillay, A, ‘Towards Effective Social and Economic Rights Adjudication: The Role of Meaningful Engagement’ (2012) 10(3) ICON 732Google Scholar; D Bilchitz (n 6); and Pieterse (n 1) 407.

34 See Sathe (n 28) 118.

35 Olga Tellis (n 12) 89.

36 Compare the South African Constitutional Court's approach in Joe Slovo (n 32); Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and others 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC); and City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 Property (Ltd) and Another (CC) 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC).

37 See Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520; and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and others (1997) 11 SCC 123.

38 See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnam Kaur (1989) 1 SCC 101; and Sodan Singh and others v New Delhi Municipal Committee and others 1992 SCR (2) 243. These cases are discussed in Muralidhar, S, ‘India: The Expectations and Challenges of Judicial Enforcement of Social Rights’ in Langford, M (ed) Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law (CUP 2008) 113Google Scholar.

39 See also Sachidananda Pandey and Another v State of West Bengal and others 1987 SCR (2) 223 at 242.

40 See Neuborne (n 5) 501.

41 See eg Rajagopal, B, ‘Pro-Human Rights But Anti-Poor? A Critical Evaluation of the Indian Supreme Court from a Social Movement Perspective’ (2007) 18 Human Rights Review 157Google Scholar, 157; and Krishnan (n 3).

42 1991 SCR Supl (2) 267. See also BALCO Employees' Union v Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.

43 Section 2(9)(ii)—see Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 42) 279.

44 Art 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and art 7(b) of the ICESCR.

45 Providing that state policy should be directed at securing the health and strength of workers. See Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 42) 293.

46 Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 42) 301.

47 Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 42) 298 and 301.

48 Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (n 42) 289.

49 Unreported judgment, decided 15/02/2000, available at <http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=16532>.

50 Almitra Patel (n 49) 4.

51 See para 6 of the court's order in Almitra Patel (n 49) 7.

52 Almitra Patel (n 49) 7.

53 Almitra Patel (n 49) 4.

54 For a critique of the case, see U Ramanathan, ‘Demolition Drive’ Economic and Political Weekly, 2 July 2005, 2908, 2908–10.

55 (n 30) at para 2.

56 2005(5) SA 3 (CC) at paras 33 and 50.

57 (2000) 10 SCC 664, available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=17165>.

58 Rajagopal (n 41) 162.

59 S Muralidhar, ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An Indian Response to the Justiciability Debate’ in Ghai and Cottrell (n 8) 27–8; and Rajagopal (n 41) 162.

60 Narmada Bachao Andolan (n 57) 11.

61 Narmada Bachao Andolan (n 57) 12–13. The petitioners argued that this recommendation had not been taken seriously by government—at 39.

62 Narmada Bachao Andolan (n 57) 14.

63 ibid 14–15.

64 ibid 22.

65 ibid 34—see also the judgment at 70.

66 ibid 19–20.

67 ibid 16.

68 See further Pillay (n 7).

69 Joe Slovo (n 32) at para 7.

70 Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2001) 5 SCALE 303; 7 SCALE 484. See Muralidhar (n 59) 29–30. The Supreme Court's orders have been compiled in Saxena, N et al. (eds), Right to Food (3rd edn, Socio-Legal Information Centre 2008)Google Scholar.

71 Higgins, M et al. (eds), Food Security and Judicial Activism in India (Human Rights Law Network 2007) viiiGoogle Scholar.

72 Supreme Court order of 20 August 2001 in Saxena et al (n 70) 27.

73 N Saxena, ‘Food Security and Poverty in India’ in Higgins et al (n 71) 9–12.

74 On the failings of the Public Distribution Schemes, see B Patnaik, ‘The Poorest in the Poorest States Suffer the Most’ in Higgins et al (n 71) 45.

75 See Supreme Court order of 2 May 2003 in Saxena et al (n 70) 42–4.

76 See Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226; and Fredman (n 1) 131.

77 Saxena et al (n 70) 31–7.

78 Saxena et al (n 70) 23.

79 Saxena et al (n 70) 31–4. The schemes are described in detail in Higgins et al (n 71) 23–37.

80 Higgins et al (n 71) 27–8.

81 Saxena et al (n 70) 31–4; and Higgins et al (n 71) 24–37.

82 Saxena et al (n 70) 32.

83 See Higgins et al (n 71) 23–4.

84 See the order of 2 May 2003 in Saxena et al (n 70) 45.

85 Appeal (civil) 6626–6675 of 2001 at 13, judgment delivered on 3 January 2006, available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=27407>.

86 Project Uchcha Vidya (n 85) 21–2.

87 Writ petition (civil) No 265 of 2006, judgment delivered on 10 April 2008, available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=27407>.

88 The challenge made in the case related to ‘Other Backward Classes’ rather than the Scheduled Castes or Tribes.

89 Ashoka Thakur (n 87) at paras 150–152 of the judgment of Balakrishnan CJ; para 139 of the judgment of Pasayat and Thakur JJ; para 1 of the judgment of Raveendran J and paras 30 and 52 of the judgment of Bhandari J. For an analysis of the judgment, see PB Mehta ‘It's a Landmark’, The Indian Express, 11 April 2008, available at <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/its-a-landmark/295263/1>.

90 Balakrishnan CJ and Raveendran J held that review should take place every ten years but Justices Pasayat, Thakkur and Bhandari endorsed a five-year period of review. See the judgment of Balakrishnan CJ at para 187; para 139 of the judgment of Pasayat J and Thakker J; para 1 Raveendran J; and para 56 of the judgment of Bhandari J. See also Mehta (n 89).

91 See para 144 of the judgment of Balakrishnan CJ, Ashoka Thakur (n 87).

92 Para 154 of the judgment of Balakrishnan CJ; and para 54 of the judgment of Bhandari J, Ashoka Thakur (n 87).

93 Writ petition 311 of 2003—see Shankar, S and Mehta, P, ‘Courts and Socioeconomic Rights in India’ in Gauri, V and Brink, D (eds), Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World (CUP 2008) 146Google Scholar, 161; and Hiremath, V, ‘HIV/AIDS and the Law’ in Desai, M and Mahabal, K (eds), Health Care Case Law in India: A Reader (Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) and India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL) 2007) 58–9Google Scholar available at <http://www.cehat.org/humanrights/caselaws.pdf>.

94 M Sharma, ‘These Commitments Make Provisions for People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA) in India’, The Indian Post, 9 August 2008, available at <http://www.theindiapost.com/health/these-commitments-make-provisions-for-people-living-with-hivaids-plha-in-india>.

95 Writ petition 512 of 1999. See <http://www.lawyerscollective.org/hiv-and-law/current-cases.html>.

96 ibid.

97 S Shankar and P Mehta (n 93) 161.

98 The term ‘a site of betrayal’ comes from Upendra Baxi's influential article (2000) ‘The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of (In)justice’ in Verma and Kusum (n 4) 161.

99 Shankar and Mehta (n 93) 176–9; and Krishnan, J, ‘Social Policy Advocacy and the Role of the Courts in India’ (2003) 21 American Asian Review 91Google Scholar, available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=682326> 10.

100 Krishnan (n 99) 3 of the online version.

101 Krishnan (n 99) 10 and 33 of the online version.

102 See Shankar and Mehta (n 93) 146; Krishnan (n 3); Krishnan, JK, ‘The Rights of the New Untouchables: A Constitutional Analysis of HIV Jurisprudence in India’ (2003) 25 HumRtsQ 791–819Google Scholar; Muralidhar (n 59); and Ramanathan (n 54).

103 Cottrell and Ghai (n 8) 76–7.

104 Cottrell and Ghai (n 8) 74.

105 Cottrell and Ghai (n 8) 75.

106 Neuborne (n 5) 504.

107 Cottrell and Ghai (n 8) 84–5.

108 For a discussion of these terms, see Jowell, J ‘Judicial Deference: Servility, Civility or Institutional Capacity?’ (2003) PL 592Google Scholar.

109 Muralidhar (n 59) 31. Rajagopal refers to a ‘serious measure of substantive ad hocism’ in the judgments of the Indian Supreme Court (n 41) 160.

110 (n 98).

111 V Gauri, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Overreaching or Underachieving?’ The World Bank Development Research Group Policy Research Working Paper 5109, November 2009, at 13 available at <http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/11/03/000158349_20091103104346/Rendered/PDF/WPS5109.pdf>.

112 Justice Suresh (ret), ‘Socio-Economic Rights and the Supreme Court’ at para 13, available at <http://escr-net.org/usr_doc/suresh_article.doc>. See also Ramanathan, U, ‘Communities at Risk: Industrial Risk in Indian Law’ Economic and Political Weekly, 9 October 2004, 4521Google Scholar, 4524–5 on the court's approach to industrial risk.

113 Rajagopal (n 41) 161 and 166. See also Justice Krishna Iyer in The Hindu, 17 December 2002, as cited by Suresh, (n 112) at para 15; and Bhushan, P, ‘Sacrificing Human Rights and Environmental Rights at the Altar of Development’ (2009) 41 George Washington International Law Review 389Google Scholar; and Ramanathan (n 112) 2910.

114 Khosla, M, ‘Making Social Rights Conditional: Lessons from India’ (2010) 8(4) ICON 739Google Scholar.

115 See further Khosla (n 114) 759–60.

116 See P Ahluwalia ‘The Implementation of the Right to Food at the National Level: A Critical Examination of the Indian Campaign on the Right to Food as an Effective Operalization of Article 11 of ICESCR’ Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Series No 8, 2004 (NYU School of Law) at 45–6, available at <http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/wp/Ahluwalia%20Implementation%20of%20the%20Right%20to%20Food.pdf>.

117 See the discussion of the Ashoka Thakur case (n 87).

118 Delhi Jal Board v National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied workers and others at para 15, in particular, available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=20373>.

119 Delhi Jal Board (n 118) paras 3–4.

120 Delhi Jal Board (n 118) para 9.

121 Delhi Jal Board (n 118) para 10.

122 Delhi Jal Board (n 118) para 15.

123 ibid.

124 Delhi Jal Board (n 118) para 20.

125 2007 (12) SCR1084, 2008(1) SCC683, available at <http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=29995>.

126 Aravali Golf Club (n 125) para 26.

127 ibid.

128 Aravali Golf Club (n 125) para 38.

129 Aravali Golf Club (n 125) para 39.

130 I am indebted to contributors to the blog, law and other things <http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/> for the news sources referred to in footnotes 130, 132 and 151. See B Dutt, ‘Order of the Day’, Hindustan Times, 14 December 2007, available at <http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/bigidea/Order-of-the-day/Article1-263165.aspx>; M Rama Jois, ‘Crossing the Lakshman Rekha’, Indianexpress.com, 17 December 2007, available at <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/crossing-the-lakshman-rekha/251051/>; and T Sharma, ‘Apex Court Says Go by Judgment, Not Observations Made by Judges’, 12 December 2007, Indianexpress.com, available at <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/apex-court-says-go-by-judgment-not-observations-made-by-judges/249343/>. Although framed in the abstract, the court's pointed comments about the non-binding nature of mere observations by judges appeared to be directed at Justice Katju's remarks in the Aravali case, decided six days previously.

131 See TR Andhyarujina, ‘Courting Limits’, 15 December 2007, Indianexpress.com, available at <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/courting-limits/250392/>.

132 Mazibuko and others v City of Johannesburg and others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions intervening) 2010 (3) BCLR 239 (CC); 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC).

133 A fuller discussion of the case is beyond the scope of this article—see Wesson, M, ‘Reasonableness in Retreat? The Judgment of the South African Constitutional Court in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg’ (2011) Human Rights Law Review 16Google Scholar and Pillay (n 7) 620–3.

134 Mazibuko (n 132) para 67.

135 ibid.

136 Mazibuko (n 132) para 71.

137 City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (CC) 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC); 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC).

138 See Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2) 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC) at para 129; Bollyky, T, ‘R if C > P+B: A Paradigm for Judicial Remedies of Socio-Economic Rights Violations’ (2002) 18 South African Journal on Human Rights 161Google Scholar; Pillay, K, ‘Implementing Grootboom: Supervision Needed’ (2002) 3 ESR Review 11Google Scholar; and Davis, D, ‘Socio-Economic Rights in South Africa: The Record of the Constitutional Court after Ten Years’ (2004) 5(5) ESR Review 3Google Scholar.

139 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2012 (2) SA 598 (CC); 2012 (4) BCLR 388 (CC); and Schubart Park Residents Association and others v City of Tshwane and others [2012] ZACC 26.

140 See Krishnan (n 102) 791–819; see also Shankar and Mehta (n 101) 178.

141 Gauri (n 111) 7.

142 Neuborne (n 5) 501–3.

143 Fredman (n 1) 107, 112 and 122.

144 Minister of Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign and Others (No 2) 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC) at para 108.

145 (n 137).

146 Galanter, M and Krishnan, J, ‘“Bread for the Poor”: Access to Justice and the Rights of the Needy in India’ 2004 (55) Hastings Law Journal 789Google Scholar, 796.

147 J Kothari, ‘The Right to Water: A Constitutional Perspective’, paper prepared for the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC) workshop ‘Water, Law and the Commons’, New Delhi, 8–10 December 2006, available at <www.ielrc.org/activities/workshop_0612/content/d0607.pdf>.

148 C Gonsalves, ‘The Politics of Hunger, the Privatisation of Food and the PDS’ Right to Food: Vol 1 (Human Rights Law Network 2004) 310, 310.

149 See Heywood, M, ‘South Africa's Treatment Action Campaign: Combining Law and Social Mobilization to Realize the Right to Health’ (2009) 1 Journal of Human Rights Practice 14Google Scholar. On the use of marches, the media and civil disobedience, as well as litigation, in the struggle for wider access to water in South Africa, see Dugard, J, ‘Urban Basic Services: Rights, Reality and Resistance’ in Langford, M, Cousins, B, Dugard, J and Madlingozi, T (eds), Symbols or Substance: The Role and Impact of Socio-Economic Rights Strategies in South Africa (CUP 2013) 28Google Scholar.

150 Gonsalves (n 140) 310.

151 See ‘Supreme Court Plans Guidelines on PILs’, Indianexpress.com, 15 December 2007, available at <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/supreme-court-plans-guidelines-on-pils/250497/>; and S Rautray, ‘Activism-Wary Judges Wash Hands of Case’, Telegraph, 12 December 2007.

152 See section II above.

153 See Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (First Certification case) 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (CC) at paras 76–8.

154 See further A Sengupta, ‘Inconsistent Decisions’ 30(8) Frontline, 3 May 2013, available at <http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/inconsistent-decisions/article4613887.ece>.

155 See A Thiruvengadam, ‘The aftermath of the Aravali Golf Club Ruling and an Analysis of Some of the Initial Commentary’, 15 December 2007, <http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/aftermath-of-aravali-golf-club-ruling.html>.