Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Concept of the Public-Interest Plaintiff and the Rationale for Filing Public Interest Lawsuits: Emphasis on Iranian Law

Document Type : Article

Authors

Homayoun Mafi 1
Ali Farhani Panah 2

1 Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student of Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2025.387520.3658
Abstract
A public-interest plaintiff refers to an individual who initiates lawsuits aimed at protecting the community beyond personal interests. The emergence of public-interest plaintiffs can be traced to contemporary social and political developments. This phenomenon responds to the growing need of societies to safeguard public interests against institutionalized powers. The nature of public interest lawsuits lies in their collective purpose. These are cases intended to protect rights and interests that belong to the entire community or a significant portion of it. The importance of examining this concept has been increasing due to the expansion of social movements and the growing recognition of collective rights. By filing lawsuits against governmental or private entities that harm public interests, public-interest plaintiffs not only hold these entities accountable under the law but also create avenues for remedying harm to the affected community. This study seeks to answer questions regarding the nature of public-interest plaintiffs, their impact on legal structures, and the readiness of the Iranian legal system to accept and adjudicate public-interest lawsuits brought by such plaintiffs. The findings indicate that public-interest plaintiffs can effect changes in the interpretation and implementation of laws and contribute to strengthening the democratic aspects of the legal system.

Keywords

public interest
personal interest
public interest plaintiff
public rights
public interest litigation
Subjects

  1. English

    1. Books
    2. Mulheron, R. (2004). The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective. Hart Publishing.
    3. Rekosh, E., Buchko, K., & Terzieva, V. (2001). Pursuing the Public Interest: A Handbook for Legal Professionals and Activists. Columbia Law School.

     

    1. Articles
    2. Anthony, G. (2013). Public Interest and The Three Dimensions of Judicial Review. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. 64(2).
    3. Casla, K., & Sandner, M. (2024). Solidarity as Foundation For Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Human Rights Law Review. 24(2).
    4. Coplan, K. S. (2009). Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, and The Petition Clause. Maine Law Review. 61(2).
    5. Cygan, A. (2003). Protecting The Interests of Civil Society in Community Decision—Making—the Limits of Article 230 EC. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 52(4).
    6. Fiss, O. (1979). The Social and Political Foundations of Adjudication. Law and Human Behavior. 3(2/3).
    7. Forster, C. M., & Jivan, V. (2008). Public Interest Litigation and Human Rights Implementation: The Indian and Australian Experience. Asian Journal of Comparative Law. 3, 1-32.
    8. Gerring, J., Jerzak, C., & Oncel, E. (2024). The Composition of Descriptive Representation. American Political Science Review. 118(2).
    9. Ghosh, P. K. (2013). Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India. Galgotias Journal of Legal Studies. 1(1).
    10. Han, Su Lin, (2017). Public Interest Litigation in China: Background Memorandum. Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School.
    11. Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, (1913). Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Yale Law Journal.23(1).
    12. Jaffe, Louis L. (1968). The Citizen as Litigant in Public Actions: The Non-Hohfeldian or Ideological Plaintiff. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 116(6), 1033-1047.
    13. Maglica, A. (2023). Public End Through Private Means: A Comparative Study on Public Interest Litigation in Europe. Erasmus Law Review. 16, 71.
    14. Morabito, V. (2001). Ideological Plaintiffs and Class Actions--An Australian Perspective. University of British Columbia Law Review, 34(2).
    15. Morrison, A. (2023). The Court That Does Not Let Standing Stand in Its Way. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo, 92, 1.
    16. Sujit Kumar, B, (2017). Public Interest Litigation: Meaning And Dimensions. Indian Journal of Law & Justice, 8, 98.
    17. Tripathi, H. (2017). Public Interest Litigation in Comparative Perspective. NJA Law Journal, 1, 49.
    18. Varuhas, J. (2016). The Public Interest Conception of Public Law: Its Procedural Implications. Cambridge Law Journal. 75(2).

     

    1. Cases
    2. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/737/, Last accessed: August 25, 2024.
    3. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Golden Sphere International, (1998), In Morabito, "Ideological plaintiffs and class actions--An Australian perspective", University of British Columbia Law Review, 34(2).
    4. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    5. Biden v. Nebraska, 143 S. Ct. 2355, 2385 (2023) (Kagan, J., dissenting), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381199590391915384&q=Biden+v.+Nebraska,+143+S.+Ct.+2355,+2385&hl=en&as_sdt=2006, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    6. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955), https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep349294/, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    7. Communities Against Runway Expansion v. FAA, 355 F. 3d 678 (D.C. Cir. 2004), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2857419011114282466&q=Communities+Against+Runaway+Expansion,+Inc.+v.+FAA,+355+F.3d+678,+685+(D.C.+Cir.+2004)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    8. Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Navy, 841 F. 2d 927 (9th Cir. 1988), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18091980247379050796&q=Friends+of+the+Earth+v.+U.S.+Navy,+841+F.2d+927,+937+(9th+Cir.+1988).&hl=en&as_sdt=2006, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    9. Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootboom and Others, 2000 Z.A.C.C. 19, 11 B.C.L.R. 1169 (2000), https://collections.concourt.org.za/handle/20.500.12144/2107, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    10. v. Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p. Greenpeace (No. 2), [1994] 4 All E.R. 329. Last accessed June 11, 2025, from https://www.oxfordlawtrove.com/display/10.1093/he/9780191995729.001.0001/he-9780191995729-chapter-35.
    11. Supreme Court of India, (1986), Olga Tellis & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 A.I.R. 180, 1985 S.C.R. Supl.(2) 51, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    12. Supreme Court of India, (2010), State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, 3 S.C.C. 402, https://www.informea.org/en/court-decision/state-uttaranchal-vs-balwant-singh-chaufal-ors, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    13. Supreme Court of India, (1982), S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1294854/, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.
    14. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/166/, Last accessed: August 27, 2024.

     

    1. Online Sources
    2. "Difference Between Non-Statutory and Statutory Bodies", (2024, June 11), Unacademy, https://unacademy.com/content/neet-ug/difference-between/non-statutory-and-statutory-bodies/#:~:text=Statutory%20bodies%20are%20organisations%20or,industries%20or%20protecting%20the%20environment, Last accessed: August 30, 2024.
    3. Supreme Court Observer, (2021, July 22), "On an Average, The Court Receives Over 25,000 PILs a Year", https://www.scobserver.in/journal/on-an-average-the-court-receives-over-25000-pils-a-year, Last accessed: August 21, 2024.

     

     

    References In Persian:

    1. Books
    2. Ja'fari Langarudi, M. J. (2013). Intermediate in Legal Terminology (5th ed.). Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh (In Persian).

     

    1. Articles
    2. Afshari, F., & Petaft, A. (2021). Obstacles to the Revival of Public Rights in Iranian law and solutions for their optimal realization. Quarterly Journal of Public Law Knowledge, 10(33), 111-140. doi: 10.22034/qjplk.2021.231 (In Persian).
    3. Rahimi, H., Niavarani, S., Jalali, M., & Yavari, A. (2020). Capacities of Iran's Legal System in Utilizing Non-governmental Organizations for Anti-corruption and Transparency. Comparative Legal Research of Iran and International, 47(13), 75-93 (In Persian).
    4. Rostami, V., & Abdi, H. (2022). An Introduction to Assessing the Judiciary's Capacity for Citizen Participation in Light of Public Rights Revival. Quarterly Journal of Ethical Research (Islamic Knowledge Association of Iran), 3(12), 183-204 (In Persian).
    5. Ramezani Ghavam Abadi, M. H., & Javadmanesh, J. (2016). A Comparative Study of The Scope of The Concept of Interested Parties in Environmental Lawsuits in Iranian Law and the European Union. Quarterly Journal of Public Law Studies, University of Tehran, 46(4), 977-1001. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2016.60526 (In Persian).
    6. Ranjbar, A. (2018). Proving Interest in "Public Rights Lawsuits". Administrative Law, 14(6), 55-76 (In Persian).
    7. Mohseni, H., Ghafari, B., & Shoshinassab, N. (2012). Class Action and Its Role in Consumer Protection Law. Private Law Research, 1(1) (In Persian).
    8. Salimi, F., & Deilami, A. (2022). The Function of a Group Litigation in Compensation for the Losses of Anti-Competitive Practices (A Comparative Study in The Legal System of Iran, the European Union and the United States). Civil Law Knowledge, 10(2) (In Persian).
    9. Tahmasebi, A. (2017). Group Litigation Order in The United Kingdom. Comparative Law Review, 8(1). (in Persian)
    10. Ghamami, S. M. M. (2018). A Model for Reviving Public Rights Through Transformation in Judicial Norms and Structures. Islamic Law, 15(58), 71-92. (In Persian).
    11. Molabeigi, G., Qotbi, M., & Mohammadi Ahmadabadi, H. (2024). An Analysis of The General Inspection Organization's Litigation in the Administrative Court of Justice Branches. Dadgostari Legal Journal, 88(126), 337-359. doi: 10.22106/jlj.2024.2013049.5468 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 4 - Serial Number 44
Winter 2026
Winter 2026
Pages 2951-2982

  • Receive Date 24 December 2024
  • Revise Date 12 June 2025
  • Accept Date 04 August 2025

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us