Common Cause (India)

Common Cause (India)
Name	Common Cause
Formation	1980
Founder	V. M. Tarkunde
Type	Non-governmental organization
Headquarters	New Delhi
Region served	India
Key people	Prashant Bhushan, Mukul Rohtagi, Sushil Kumar

Common Cause (India) is an Indian public interest litigation advocacy group and non-governmental organization founded in 1980 by V. M. Tarkunde. It is headquartered in New Delhi and engages in legal activism, accountability campaigns, and policy interventions through the Indian judicial system, civil society networks, and media forums. The organization has been prominent in litigating issues before the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts of India, influencing administrative transparency, electoral reforms, and social welfare jurisprudence.

History

Common Cause was established in 1980 by V. M. Tarkunde, a former judge and civil liberties activist associated with movements linked to Civil liberties in India, Human Rights in India, and post-independence legal reform debates. Early work intersected with campaigns led by organizations such as the Indian Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Commission (India), and activists from the Gandhian and Ambedkarite traditions. During the 1980s and 1990s Common Cause litigated matters echoing contemporary controversies involving the Ministry of Home Affairs (India), state administrations of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, and national institutions like the Election Commission of India. In the 2000s and 2010s figures including Prashant Bhushan and other public interest litigators expanded the organization's profile with petitions in the Supreme Court of India on matters affecting public resources, governance transparency, and constitutional rights.

Mission and Objectives

Common Cause frames its mission around public interest litigation advocacy, seeking to uphold constitutional guarantees enshrined in the Constitution of India and to strengthen institutions such as the Right to Information Act, the Election Commission of India, and judicial accountability mechanisms. Objectives include litigation to protect Fundamental Rights of India, campaigns targeting corruption investigated under provisions connected to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and interventions to secure welfare entitlements linked to schemes like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and public distribution systems administered by state authorities. Common Cause also pursues objectives related to electoral integrity, transparency in public appointments influenced by precedents set by the Central Vigilance Commission and advisory opinions from the Supreme Court of India.

Key Campaigns and Impact

Common Cause has initiated and participated in numerous high-profile cases and campaigns. Notable interventions include litigation on the derecognition of elected representatives affecting Representation of the People Act, 1951 issues, petitions challenging executive actions touching on Office of Profit disqualifications, and PILs on disclosure of public officials' assets invoking norms shaped by Right to Information Act jurisprudence. The organization played a role in debates over euthanasia and end-of-life care referencing the Aruna Shanbaug case and subsequent legal developments in the Supreme Court of India on passive euthanasia. Common Cause also filed PILs concerning allocation and management of subsidies and public funds that engaged institutions such as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and prompted administrative responses from the Union Cabinet and various state cabinets. Through litigation and advocacy, Common Cause has influenced rulings that intersect with standards set by panels like the Law Commission of India and commissioners appointed under various statutes.

Governance and Funding

Common Cause is governed by a managing committee and trustees drawn from legal, academic, and civil society circles, in ways comparable to governance structures found in other Indian NGOs such as Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Transparency International India. Key personnel historically have included senior advocates who have argued before the Supreme Court of India and High Courts of India. Funding has come from domestic donations, membership dues, and grants from philanthropic foundations and individual benefactors; its financial reporting has periodically been scrutinized in the context of Indian laws on charitable trusts and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 where applicable. The organization’s governance practices have engaged norms articulated by statutory bodies like the Registrar of Societies and compliance frameworks tied to taxation rules administered by the Income Tax Department (India).

Legal Actions and Public Interest Litigation

Common Cause has been a prolific petitioner in public interest litigation before the Supreme Court of India, contesting executive decisions, seeking declaratory relief, and requesting writs under the Indian Constitution. Cases have addressed administrative accountability, custodial rights, environmental claims in forums linked to the National Green Tribunal, and procedural fairness in appointments to constitutional posts such as the Chief Election Commissioner of India and members of the Judicial Appointments Commission debates. Its petitions have sometimes led to landmark judgments shaping Article 21 of the Constitution of India jurisprudence and procedural norms in public law litigation. Litigation strategies have involved senior counsel from leading chambers and interaction with amici curiae appointed by apex courts.

Criticisms and Controversies

Common Cause has faced criticism and controversy from political parties including Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress, and regional formations over its PILs that impact political figures and policy choices. Critics allege politicization of public interest litigation and occasional strategic use of the judiciary to achieve policy ends, a critique similar to debates involving activists and litigators such as Arvind Kejriwal-era controversies and clashes with state institutions. There have been specific disputes about funding compliance under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and challenges to standing and locus in cases where opponents invoked provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defenders argue that judicial oversight and precedents established by the Supreme Court of India validate civil society’s role in rights litigation.

Category:Non-profit organisations based in India