The Rise of Public Interest Litigation: Boon or Bane?

Introduction

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a transformative development in India's legal system that empowers individuals or groups to seek justice for the broader public good rather than personal relief. Emerging in the late 1970s, it marked a shift from traditional legal norms, particularly by relaxing the rule of locus standi. PIL has enhanced access to justice for marginalized communities and strengthened the enforcement of constitutional rights, becoming a key tool for promoting social justice and realizing the ideals of equality, liberty, and dignity. But while it has had numerous successes, the evolution of PIL has also been the cause of great controversy, particularly in its abuse, and has necessitated a critical re-evaluation of whether PIL remains a blessing or is slowly turning into a curse. In doing so, it has brought to life the constitutional ideals of equality, liberty, and dignity in tangible ways. However, despite its many achievements, the evolution of PIL has not been free from controversy. Concerns over its misuse for private, political, or publicity-driven purposes, along with instances of judicial overreach, have raised important questions about the sustainability and scope of this mechanism. To ensure that this powerful tool continues to serve its intended purpose without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

The contribution of PIL

The advent of PIL into Indian law was a turning point in the history of legal evolution in India. This revolutionary transformation started with a series of path-breaking judgments, the most significant being Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which brought to light the inhuman state of undertrial prisoners rotting in jails with no legal assistance or speedy trial. This judgment was instrumental in easing the orthodox rule of locus standi. It enabled the court to receive letters and petitions from people who were not directly involved in the issue. Soon after, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) reaffirmed the principles of PIL and validated the right of public-minded persons to approach courts for judicial redress for the enforcement of constitutional and legal rights of others, particularly those who were unable to approach courts themselves. These judgments laid the foundation for social action litigation, bringing issues like bonded labour, custodial violence, environmental harm, and slum evictions into the judicial sphere. PIL became a voice for the voiceless, expanding access to justice for marginalized groups neglected by the traditional legal system.

PIL has, over the years, been a major force for compelling government responsibility, securing the environment, upholding human rights, and promoting public welfare. Perhaps the best example of the power of PIL to transform is to be found in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), wherein the Supreme Court issued mandatory directives regarding sexual harassment in the workplace in the absence of any national law. This milestone judgment was the precursor to the introduction of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013. Likewise, the MC Mehta v. Union of India string of environmental PILs has gone a long way in the making of environmental jurisprudence in India. These cases have resulted in major directives such as the shutdown of polluting units, enhancement of vehicle emissions, safeguarding of the Ganga river, and control of hazardous materials. Through these interventions, the judiciary has not only become a defender of individual rights but also a defender of collective interests and the public good.

The dark side of PIL

However, the very success of PIL has exposed it to exploitation. The rising number of PILs, presented in recent times, has raised fears regarding their frivolity and the escalation of what the courts have referred to as "publicity interest litigation." Most petitions lodged in the name of public interest have been politically motivated due to rivalries, personal grudges, or a craving for publicity. These PILs tend to be poorly researched, fact-based, or unconcerned with the welfare of people, thus blocking the judicial docket and shifting the attention of the courts from weighty issues. 

The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) issued specific guidelines to restrain the growing abuse of PIL. Recognizing that frivolous or motivated PILs threaten the legitimacy of the mechanism, the Court emphasized that such misuse undermines judicial credibility, burdens the justice delivery system, and weakens the transformative potential of genuine PILs. The Court outlined key safeguards, including that petitions must be filed only by persons acting in bona fide public interest, that courts must verify the credentials and motives of the petitioner, and that matters involving personal or political vendettas should be summarily dismissed. These guidelines are aimed at reinforcing the role of courts as institutional gatekeepers, selectively allowing only serious, well-founded PILs while filtering out those lacking merit.

While these directions appear sound in principle, their practical implementation presents a delicate balancing act. Over-strict gatekeeping may discourage legitimate petitioners, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who may lack legal sophistication or institutional backing. Conversely, lax enforcement of these safeguards risks overwhelming courts with unmeritorious claims. The effectiveness of these recommendations thus hinges on judicial discretion being exercised with sensitivity, ensuring access to justice remains open for genuine public causes, even as procedural discipline is maintained to prevent misuse.

A concomitant complaint launched against PIL development relates to judicial overextension. Critics say that the judiciary, in the guise of PILs, has at times overstepped into the jurisdiction of the legislature and the executive, thus disturbing the constitutional separation of powers. The court's intervention in policy-sensitive issues like the curriculum of school textbooks, commodity prices, temple management, and urban development projects has created a situation where judicial pronouncements tend to take the form of administrative or legislative orders. This blurring of institutional lines has far-reaching implications for the legitimacy and accountability of the judiciary. While courts are called upon to prevent the executive from overstepping the limits of the Constitution, it is equally important that they do not usurp the wisdom of elected officials or policy experts.

The balancing act

In spite of these challenges, the contribution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to Indian democracy remains irrepressible. At its core, PIL is a remarkable innovation that redefines the role of the judiciary in a participatory democratic framework. It has not only given voice to the marginalized and the silenced but has also enabled civil society to play a pivotal role in ensuring that the executive adheres to its constitutional obligations. By responding to social grievances and human rights violations, PIL has awakened the judiciary’s sensitivity to issues affecting the poor and the vulnerable. It has also spurred judicial creativity in interpreting constitutional provisions in ways that reflect contemporary societal needs.

However, two pressing challenges now confront the PIL regime - the rising number of redundant or frivolous PILs and judicial overextension into policy domains. Addressing these separately is essential to preserving the integrity and effectiveness of the system.

The first challenge relates to the exponential increase in redundant, politically motivated, or poorly researched PILs that burden the judicial machinery. The Balwant Singh Chaufal case laid down preliminary safeguards to curb this misuse, yet their enforcement remains inconsistent. As per the 2017 Law Commission of India Report (Report No. 275), nearly 40% of PILs filed in higher courts were found to lack sufficient merit or clarity, often reflecting personal grievances rather than broader public interest. To address this, courts must institutionalize pre-admission scrutiny mechanisms such as mandatory background affidavits, filtering benches, and case briefings with amicus curiae before issuing notice. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh, for instance, has a rigorous preliminary review system that ensures only substantial PILs proceed. India could adopt a similar model to screen for bona fide claims, preserving judicial time and attention for issues of genuine public concern.

The second challenge is judicial overextension, the tendency of courts to assume roles that encroach upon the domain of the legislature or executive. While judicial activism has helped correct systemic injustices, unchecked intervention into complex matters of policy, administration, or budget allocation risks upsetting the constitutional balance of power. In comparative terms, the South African Constitutional Court offers a measured approach: while robustly enforcing socio-economic rights, it adopts the doctrine of "reasonableness review" rather than prescribing specific policy directions, respecting the separation of powers. Indian courts, too, should adopt similar standards, limiting their engagement to reviewing legality and constitutionality without stepping into executive shoes. Judicial restraint, far from diluting PIL, reinforces its credibility and ensures its sustainable use in a constitutional democracy.

The key to sustaining the beneficial impact of PIL lies in a balanced and disciplined exercise of judicial discretion. Courts must strengthen institutional mechanisms to filter out frivolous petitions, while remaining open to genuine causes that may lack formal legal representation. Simultaneously, steps must be taken to promote legal literacy, expand access to professional legal aid, and foster an evidence-based culture in PIL advocacy. Reports from the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative have emphasized the role of paralegal networks and NGOs in bridging the gap between affected communities and the courts. Legal education curricula should also include practical PIL modules to promote responsible engagement from the next generation of advocates.

Importantly, the onus is not on the judiciary alone. The legal profession, civil society organizations, and citizens must uphold ethical standards and resist the temptation of PIL as a tool for media attention or personal gain. A shared commitment to self-regulation, transparent motives, and constructive engagement will help restore PIL to its rightful place—as a powerful means for democratic transformation, not a platform for judicial or litigative excess.

Conclusion

In summary, the tale of Public Interest Litigation in India is inspiring but also cautionary. It is a strong affirmation of the judiciary's ability to be a force for social change and facilitator of participatory governance. With PIL, the courts have converted the lofty ideals of the Constitution into enforceable rights and shown that justice can be inclusive and dynamic. Simultaneously, the abuse of PIL has also seriously questioned judicial propriety, the speed of court processes, and the legitimacy of legal activism. As PIL develops further, its future depends on striking a fine line between accessibility and accountability, innovation and restraint. If employed cautiously and in good faith, PIL will remain a ray of hope for millions of Indians. But if left to be hijacked by special interests, it can well turn out to be a victim of its own success. It is thus critical that the judiciary, bar, and civil society cooperate in keeping the sanctity of this wonderful legal innovation alive so that it continues to remain a force for good in the Indian democratic order.