Public interest litigation in India

Last updated

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s[ when? ] the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases[ when? ] on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

Contents

History

One of the earliest public interest litigation was filed by G. Vasantha Pai who filed a case in the Madras High Court against the then sitting Chief Justice of the Madras High court S. Ramachandra Iyer [1] after it was found the judge had forged his date of birth to avoid compulsory retirement at the age of 60 and his younger brother sent invitations to celebrate his 60th birthday and Pai found evidence after photographing his original birth register which showed his real age which was 64. Ramachandra Iyer resigned on a request from the then Chief Justice of India P. B. Gajendragadkar as the case would damage the judiciary [2] and he had resigned before the case came up for hearing this led the case to be dismissed as he had resigned. [3] [4]

In December 1979, Kapila Hingorani filed a petition in regards to the condition of the prisoners detained in the Bihar jail, whose suits were pending in court. The petition was signed by prisoners of the Bihar jail and the case was filed in the Supreme Court of India before the bench headed by Justice P. N. Bhagwati. The petition was filed under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, and the case was therefore named Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar. The Supreme Court decided that prisoners should receive free legal aid and fast hearings. As a result, 40,000 prisoners were released from jail. Thereafter many similar cases have been registered in the Supreme Court. It was in the case of SP Gupta vs Union of India that the Supreme Court of India defined the term "public interest litigation" in the Indian context.

The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) is suited to the principles enshrined in Article 39A [lower-alpha 1] of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law. Before the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could approach the courts for justice. After the emergency era the high court reached out to the people and devised a means for any person of the public (or NGO) approaching the court to seek legal remedy in cases where public interest is at stake. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in court. [5] Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as a usual legal case; there have been instances when letters and telegrams addressed to the court have been heard as PILs. [6]

The Supreme Court entertained a letter from two professors at the University of Delhi; it requested the enforcement of the constitutional right of inmates at a protective home in Agra who lived in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, 1982 (2) SCC 583  : 1982 SCC (Cri) 511  : AIR 1983 SC 339, the court treated a letter addressed to a judge of the court by the Free Legal Aid Committee in Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition. In Citizens for Democracy through its President v. State of Assam and Others, 1995 KHC 486  : 1995 (2) KLT SN 74  : 1995 (3) SCC 743  : 1995 SCC (Cri) 600  : AIR 1996 SC 2193, the court entertained a letter from Shri Kuldip Nayar (a journalist, in his capacity as President of Citizens for Democracy) to a judge of the court alleging human rights violations of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) detainees; it was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. [7] [8]

Frivolous PILs not permitted

PIL is a rule of law declared by the courts of record. However, the person (or entity) filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition serves the public interest and is not as a frivolous lawsuit brought for monetary gain. The 38th Chief Justice of India, S. H. Kapadia, has stated that substantial "fines" would be imposed on litigants filing frivolous PILs. His statement was widely praised because the incidence of frivolous PILs for monetary interest were on the rise.[ citation needed ] A bench of the high court had also expressed concern over the misuse of PILs. The bench issued a set of guidelines it wanted all courts in the country to observe when entertaining PILs.[ citation needed ]

In a September 2008 speech, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed concern over the misuse of PILs: “Many would argue that like in so many things in public life, in PILs too we may have gone too far. Perhaps a corrective was required and we have had some balance restored in recent times”.[ citation needed ] In what may be a tool against frivolous PILs, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice (assisted by Bhagwati and Iyer) prepared a law regulating PILs.

The judgment said: “This court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who approaches the court must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions”. For example, a petition drafted by Amar Singh was vague, not in conformance with the rules of procedure, and contained inconsistencies; the court did not explore his primary grievance (infringement of privacy). A positive outcome of the case was the court's request that the government “frame certain statutory guidelines to prevent interception of telephone conversation on unauthorised requests”. In this case, Reliance Communications acted upon a forged request from police.

In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India, the court cited the misuse of public-interest litigation in business conflicts. A writ petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court seeking the closure of asbestos units, stating that the material was harmful to humans. The high court dismissed the petition, stating that it was filed at the behest of rival industrial groups who wanted to promote their products as asbestos substitutes. A similar petition was then submitted to the Supreme Court. The plea was dismissed, and the plaintiff was assessed a fine of ₹100,000. The judgment read: “The petition lacks bona fide and in fact was instituted at the behest of a rival industrial group, which was interested in banning of[ sic ] the activity of mining and manufacturing of asbestos. A definite attempt was made by it to secure a ban on these activities with the ultimate intention of increasing the demand of cast and ductile iron products as they are some of the suitable substitute for asbestos. Thus it was litigation initiated with ulterior motive of causing industrial imbalance and financial loss to the industry of asbestos through the process of court”. The court stated that it was its duty in such circumstances to punish the petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act; it must “ensure that such unscrupulous and undesirable public interest litigation be not instituted in courts of law so as to waste the valuable time of the courts as well as preserve the faith of the public in the justice delivery system”.

“By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals, i.e., busybodies', a bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S. S. Nijjar observed in their judgment. The bench overturned an April 2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court decision which set aside the services of a retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer employed by the Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. The high court’s decision concerned a public-interest petition filed by S. Mangati Gopal Reddy, who alleged in court that the former IPS officer was involved in the loss of “300 gold dollars” from the temple and should not continue in office. The Supreme Court found that the high court decided against the accused with little information about Reddy himself.

Importance

Public interest litigation gives a wider description to the right to equality, life and personality, which is guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India. It also functions as an effective instrument for changes in the society or social welfare. Through public interest litigation, any public or person can seek remedy on behalf of the oppressed class by introducing a PIL. [9]

The PIL concept deviates from the traditional adversarial justice system that is followed in the common law countries (past colonies of the UK), and this construct is in fact inquisitorial in nature which permits the judges to directly participate in the investigation of the case.

Parties against whom PILs can be filed

A PIL may be filed against state government, central government, municipal authority. Also, private person may be included in PIL as ‘Respondent’, after concerned of state authority. i.e. a private factory in Mumbai which is causing pollution then public interest litigation can be filed against government of Mumbai, state pollution central board including that private factory of Mumbai. [9]

Filing a PIL under article 32, 226 Constitution of India or section 133 Cr. P. C.

The court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfills some basic needs for PIL as the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited individual and a social action group for the enforcement of legal or Constitutional rights to any person who are not able to approach the court for redress. Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition:

Landmark PIL cases

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

The case fought against sexual harassment in the workplace and was filed by Bhanwari Devi, who, after trying to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl in rural Rajasthan, was raped by five men. She faced numerous problems when she (Devi) attempted to seek justice. Naina Kapoor decided to initiate a PIL to challenge sexual harassment at workplace in the Supreme Courts.

The judgement of the case recognized sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Articles 14, 15, and 21. The guidelines also directed for sexual harassment prevention. [9]

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

The court shut down numerous industries and allowed them to reopen only after controlled pollution disposal in the Ganga basin. [9]

Impact of PIL

A controversial study by social scientist Hans Dembowski concluded that PILs had been successful in making official authorities accountable to NGOs. While Dembowski also found some effect at the grassroots level, PIL cases dealing with major environmental grievances in the Kolkata urban agglomeration did not tackle underlying problems (such as inadequate town planning). Dembowsk wrote about it in his book, Taking the State to Supreme Court - Public Interest Litigation and the Public Sphere in Metropolitan India which was originally published by Oxford University Press in 2001. The publisher, however, discontinued distribution because of contempt of court proceedings initiated by the Calcutta High Court. The author, who claimed he was never officially notified by the court, republished the book online with German NGO Asia House. [10] [11]

PILs have failed to provide justice to the poor and needy in whose name it was initiated. In a path breaking report published in 2005, it was opined that PILs instead of helping the poor are adversely affecting their homes and livelihoods. It has in effect become an industry. The Report demanded an independent study to be conducted on the impact of PILs. [12]

PIL Dravyavati River by Committee for Protection of Public Properties

Earlier, the princely state of Jaipur used to get water from this river by making a canal, later this river turned into a dirty drain. There are more than 160 tubewells around it. Those who are giving water to the city. There have been infections in many tube wells. The State Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the transition to water in the year 2001. A citizens committee became a party to the case and decided that the river should be brought in its original form. Expert committee was formed. In 2007, when no action was ruled on the case, the PIL of the river was presented. Many constructions were broken and currently the river is 48 km long. Influential people bought land at the cost of Kodis from poor accountants in the river and did not allow the original width of the river to be restored. The current width is 210 feet. Later Tata projects worked on the rejuvenation of Dravyavati river projects with the Jaipur Development Authority. Rapid urbanisation in the last 3-4 decades, coupled with rampant encroachments in the river area and its catchment areas and the dumping of sewage, industrial waste water, and solid waste, converted this once pristine flowing river to a Nallah. In the first-of-its-kind river rejuvenation activity, the Dravyavati River Project will oversee the amortisation of 170 MLD polluted water and have more than 100 fall structures constructed to turn this rain side river to a perennial river. More than 18,000 trees were planted and 65,000 square meters green area developed under this project. [13]

Public interest litigation on publication of property list of princely state of Rajasthan Article 12 (1) and (II) of the agreement provides that immovable properties of former princely states which were public properties of the princely state on August 15, 1947, will be transferred to the state. In this way, two lists were to be made, if there is a dispute over the property of the transferring property to a new state and the personal property of the other princely states, then the Court will not have the right of trial under Article 363 of the Constitution and the State Ministry of the Government of India (the current home). The decision will be final, the former princely states made a single list and made entire public properties their own. Bhajpa Congress governments kept silence. Public interest litigation is presented in this regard. See detail HIGHCORT site and attached writ petition. D B Civil Writ (P) 10655/15 Writ Petition was submitted regarding the cradle of the agreement reached with Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and 563 former princely states of the country and 18 princely states of Rajasthan. [14]

Further considerations

A bench consisting of Justices G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly pointed out that laws enacted for achieving the goals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution were inadequate; the benefits of welfare measures embodied in the legislation had not reached millions of poor people, and efforts to bridge the gap between rich and poor did not yield the desired results.

Singhvi wrote, in a case concerning sewage workers: “The most unfortunate part of the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of the state i.e., the judiciary issues directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life, and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicap of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, and directions are given for implementation of the laws enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots, a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or overreach”. [15]

The bench clarified that it was necessary to erase the impression on some that the superior courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for the poor who could not seek protection of their rights, exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction. The judges said it was the duty of the judiciary to protect the rights of every citizen and ensure that all lived with dignity.

Such cases may be filed for public interest when victims lack the capability to commence litigation or their freedom to petition the court has been blocked. The court may proceed sua sponte , or cases can proceed on the petition of an individual or group. Courts may also proceed on the basis of letters written to them or newspaper reports.

The Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore (CLPR) hosts a Public Interest Lawyering Hub, [16] where resources on PIL are available.

Notes

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">V. R. Krishna Iyer</span> Indian judge (1915–2014)

Justice Vaidyanathapuram Rama Iyer Krishna Iyer was an Indian judge who became a pioneer of judicial activism. He pioneered the legal-aid movement in the country. Before that, he was a state minister and politician.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karnataka High Court</span> High Court for Indian state of Karnataka at Bengaluru

The High Court of Karnataka is the High Court of the Indian state of Karnataka and thus its highest judicial authority. The court's principal bench is located in Bengaluru, the capital city of Karnataka, with additional benches in Hubballi-Dharwada and Kalaburagi. It was previously called the High Court of Mysore. In Bengaluru, the High Court functions out of a red-painted brick building known as the Attara Kacheri, located opposite the Vidhana Soudha, the seat of the Karnataka Legislature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Judges and a Chief Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hans Raj Khanna</span> Indian judge (1912–2008)

Hans Raj Khanna was an Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and attempted to uphold civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976. He entered the Indian judiciary in 1952 as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in 1971 where he continued till his resignation in 1977.

Environment policies of the Government of India includes legislations related to environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ashok Desai</span> Indian lawyer (1932–2020)

Ashok H. Desai was an Indian lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of India. He held office as the Attorney General of India from 9 July 1996 to 6 May 1998. Earlier, he was the Solicitor General of India from 18 December 1989 to 2 December 1990. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan award and the Law Luminary Award in 2001. He was given an honorary doctorate in "recognition of his contribution to the field of law and jurisprudence" by the North Orissa University in September 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Law Network</span>

The Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) is an Indian non-profit organisation founded in 1989 to protect the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of society. Working on the intersection of law, advocacy, policy, and education, HRLN is organised as a collective of lawyers and social activists dedicated to providing legal assistance to vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, advocating for the implementation of structures to safeguard human rights and fight systemic oppression, and educating the public on their rights and remedies. HRLN provides pro bono legal services to marginalised groups, conducts investigations into human rights violations, and undertakes high-stakes impact litigation in service of the public interest. The organisation operates across the spectrum of public interest law, focusing specifically on children’s rights, rights of disabled persons, rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, prisoners' rights, refugee rights, rights of indigenous people, workers' rights, rights of minorities, and the protection of victims of sexual violence or trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">P. N. Bhagwati</span> 17th Chief Justice of India

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati was the 17th Chief Justice of India, serving from 12 July 1985 until his retirement on 20 December 1986. He introduced the concepts of public interest litigation and absolute liability in India, and for this reason is held, along with Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, to be a pioneer of judicial activism in the country. He is the longest-served supreme court judge in India.

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. H. Kapadia</span> 38th Chief Justice of India

Sarosh Homi Kapadia was the 38th Chief Justice of India. He was the first chief justice born in independent India.

A private attorney general or public interest lawyer is an informal term originating in common law jurisdictions for a private attorney who brings a lawsuit claiming it to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens. The attorney may, at the equitable discretion of the court, be entitled to recover attorney's fees if they prevail. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private attorneys to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. Private attorney general suits are commonly, though not always, brought as class actions in jurisdictions that permit the certification of class action lawsuits.

The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges ,which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases.

Pushpa Kapila Hingorani was an Indian lawyer who is regarded as "Mother of Public Interest Litigation" (PIL).

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional. The law dated from 1860. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband's consent or connivance could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. As such, the concept of adultery targeted the act of sexual intercourse occurring between a married woman and a man other than her husband, in which case the man would be guilty whereas the wife was exempt from punishment. When a married man had sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, no party was punishable; while if a married man had sexual intercourse with a married woman other than his wife, the married man's crime was against the husband of that married woman, not against the man's own wife towards whom he had been unfaithful. Adultery was only prosecutable upon the complaint of the aggrieved husband.

Kaleeswaram Raj is an Indian lawyer practising in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Kerala. He has successfully argued for decriminalisation of the offence of adultery in India.

In India, the offence of contempt of court is committed when a person either disobeys a court order, or when a person says or does anything that scandalizes, prejudices, or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Contempt of court can be punished with imprisonment or a fine, or both.

<i>ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla</i> 1976 Supreme Court of India case on The Emergency

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla was a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to the suspension of Articles 21 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in the event of a National Emergency. This controversial judgment of P.N. Bhagwati, decreed during the emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person's right to not be unlawfully detained can be suspended in the interest of the State. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance of attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. Going against the previous decisions of High Courts, the bench which included P. N. Bhagwati concluded by a majority 4:1 in favour of the then Indira Gandhi government while only Justice Hans Raj Khanna was opposed to it. Bhagwati openly praised Indira Gandhi during the Emergency period, later criticized her when Janata Party-led government was formed and again backed Gandhi when she got re-elected to form government in 1980. Bhagwati was criticized for these change of stands, favouring the ruling government, which were deemed as to have been taken to better his career prospects. Bhagwati later in 2011 agreed with popular opinion that this judgement was short-sighted and apologised.

<i>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India</i> Court case of India

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, and established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, holding that a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of them. Once again overruling A. K. Gopalan, the Court in this case held that a 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M. M. Sundresh</span> Indian judge (born 1962)

M. M. Sundresh is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He previously served as a judge of the Madras High Court.

References

  1. ↑ "Vasantha Pai, an advocate's advocate". The Hindu. 16 February 2009. Archived from the original on 25 April 2021. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
  2. ↑ P. M. Belliappa (29 January 2011). "The controversy over age... then and now". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 11 April 2021. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
  3. ↑ "G. Vasantha Pai vs Sri S. Ramachandra Iyer". Indian Kanoon. Archived from the original on 25 December 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2021.
  4. ↑ Albuquerque, Olav (29 April 2022). "PIL jurisprudence needs to undergo a change, writes Olav Albuquerque". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 14 April 2024.
  5. ↑ "Public Interest Litigation (PIL) A Boon or Bane". www.legalserviceindia.com. Archived from the original on 8 September 2023. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
  6. ↑ "Introduction to Public Interest Litigation". Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
  7. ↑ Constitution of India
  8. ↑ Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala and Others [AIR 2008 SC 1614
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Bharat, Amar (24 October 2017). "PIL AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION" AND "PRIVATE INTEREST LITIGATION"". Into Legal World. Archived from the original on 29 October 2017. Retrieved 7 December 2017.
  10. ↑ "Taking the State to Court" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 January 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2013.
  11. ↑ Dembowski, Hans (2009). "Erratic justice?". Development and Cooperation. 36 (3). Frankfurt am Main: Societäts-Verlag: 122–123.
  12. ↑ "The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Opinions". m.tribuneindia.com. Archived from the original on 8 September 2023. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
  13. ↑ "Dravyavati river: 'Give revenue record of Dravyavati': Rajasthan High Court | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 6 August 2022. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  14. ↑ "No trace of property docus of princely states: Centre to HC | Jaipur News - Times of India". The Times of India . 6 March 2018. Archived from the original on 6 March 2018. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
  15. ↑ "Supreme Court Judgment on Scavengers working under the Delhi Jal Board (Civil Appeal No 5322 of 2011)". 21 August 2011. Archived from the original on 7 November 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
  16. ↑ "Public Interest Lawyering Hub". Archived from the original on 17 September 2013. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.