PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION: CONCEPT AND EVOLUTION

Abstract:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a powerful legal tool that allows individuals or groups to seek justice on behalf of those who are unable to approach the courts themselves. Unlike traditional litigation, where only the affected person can file a case, PIL can be filed by anyone in the interest of the public, especially for the protection of fundamental rights or in cases involving social injustice, environmental issues, or government inaction. The concept of PIL in India evolved during the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was mainly shaped by the efforts of activist judges of the Supreme Court. They introduced the idea that even a simple letter written to the court could be treated as a PIL. This step was taken to make justice more accessible to the poor, marginalized, and those who could not afford to approach the courts. Over time, PIL became a strong mechanism for judicial activism. Many significant judgments have been passed through PILs, leading to improvements in areas like bonded labor, pollution control, protection of heritage sites and rights of prisoners. However, the misuse of PIL for personal gain or publicity has also raised concerns. Therefore, courts have laid down guidelines to ensure that only genuine cases in public interest are entertained. PIL has played a key role in strengthening democracy and promoting justice in India by making the legal system more inclusive and responsive to public needs.

Introduction:

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.  Therefore, we can say that an assured right is guaranteed to individuals for enforcement of fundamental rights by this article as the law provides the right to an individual to directly approach the Supreme Court without following a lengthier process of moving to the lower courts first as the main purpose of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 is the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.  Dr Ambedkar stated that: “If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity-I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realized its importance.”  Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a unique and important development in the Indian legal system. It allows any public-spirited person to approach the court for the protection of public interest, even if they are not directly affected by the issue. This is different from traditional litigation, where only the aggrieved person has the right to file a case.  The main aim of PIL is to provide justice to the poor, disadvantaged, and socially or economically weaker sections of society who may not be able to reach the court due to poverty, ignorance, or other barriers.  The Supreme Court and High Courts have used their powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to accept and decide PILs. Over the years, PIL has become a strong tool to uphold the rights of people and ensure that public authorities perform their duties properly.  Public Interest Litigation has transformed the Indian legal landscape by making justice more accessible, promoting accountability, and encouraging active citizen participation in governance and social change.

Concept of Public Interest Litigation:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a significant and progressive feature of the Indian legal system that enables individuals or groups to seek judicial intervention in matters concerning the larger public interest, especially those affecting the rights of disadvantaged and voiceless sections of society. It marks a shift from the traditional rule of locus standi, which allowed only the affected parties to approach the court, to a more liberal approach that permits any concerned citizen to raise issues of public concern before the judiciary.

The concept of PIL originated to address situations where legal rights are violated, but the affected persons are unable to approach the courts due to poverty, illiteracy or social disadvantage. In such cases, a public-spirited individual or a non-governmental organization (NGO) can approach the court on behalf of the affected group. PIL thus serves as a tool for ensuring justice in a broader sense, by providing access to courts for the poor, marginalized and unrepresented.

In India, the concept of PIL has been developed by the judiciary under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to issue directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and Article 226, which grants similar powers to High Courts. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention PIL, the courts interpreted these provisions to allow petitions in the public interest, even if the petitioner is not personally affected.

PIL in India took root in the late 1970s and early 1980s, largely due to the efforts of judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati. These judges realized the need to make justice more accessible and believed that the judiciary must play an active role in addressing social injustice and governmental failures. They accepted even informal letters as writ petitions if they raised serious issues of public concern.

The subjects of PIL are wide-ranging and include protection of the environment, elimination of bonded labour, prison reforms, rights of children and women, public health, corruption, and more. Landmark PILs like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)[1], M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)[2], and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)[3] have brought about far-reaching changes in the Indian legal and policy framework.

PIL has not only enhanced the role of the judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights but has also encouraged public participation in the enforcement of legal and constitutional rights. It has made the legal system more open, participatory, and responsive to the needs of society.[4]

However, the growing popularity of PIL has also led to its misuse. Some petitions are filed for personal gain, political interest, or publicity rather than genuine public concern. To prevent such misuse, courts now carefully examine the intention behind the PIL and may impose fines for filing frivolous petitions.

In essence, the concept of Public Interest Litigation is a bold and innovative step by the Indian judiciary that reinforces the values of social justice, equality, and rule of law. When used sincerely, it acts as a powerful mechanism for upholding constitutional values and ensuring that justice is not denied to any section of society.

Evolution of Public Interest Litigation:

The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India marks a revolutionary shift in the Indian legal system. Traditionally, courts dealt only with cases where individuals approached them with personal grievances. However, the concept of PIL allowed courts to entertain petitions filed by people who were not directly affected but sought justice for others or for the public good. This made the judiciary more accessible and responsive to the needs of the poor, marginalized, and voiceless sections of society.

Pre-PIL Era: Rigid Locus Standi:

Before the 1970s, the Indian judicial system strictly followed the principle of locus standi, which meant that only the person whose rights were directly affected could approach the court. This limited the reach of justice, as many people—especially the poor, uneducated, and socially oppressed—could not afford to file cases or were unaware of their rights. Courts were passive and waited for cases to be brought before them.

Birth of PIL: 1970s–Early 1980s

PIL formally began in the late 1970s when the Supreme Court of India relaxed the rule of locus standi. Two visionary judges—Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati—played a crucial role in this development[5]. They believed that the judiciary must reach out to help those who could not help themselves. They accepted petitions even in the form of letters and postcards, treating them as writ petitions in public interest.

The turning point came with cases like:

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)[6], where a letter about undertrial prisoners led to reforms in the criminal justice system.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)[7], where the court formally allowed public-spirited citizens to file petitions on behalf of others.

Golden Era of PIL: 1980s–1990s

The 1980s and early 1990s were considered the golden era of PIL. The judiciary actively responded to issues of social injustice, human rights violations, and environmental concerns. Courts became more proactive, addressing problems like bonded labour, pollution, custodial violence, and lack of basic human needs like food, shelter, and health[8].

Landmark PIL cases from this era include:

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – leading to major environmental reforms.
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra – protecting the rights of women prisoners.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – establishing sexual harassment guidelines at workplaces.

Rise of Misuse and Judicial Control: 2000s Onward:

As PIL became more popular, some individuals began misusing it for personal, political, or publicity purposes. Frivolous and dishonest PILs started to flood the courts, wasting judicial time and delaying genuine causes. Recognizing this, the judiciary laid down stricter rules.  In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010)[9], the Supreme Court issued guidelines to control misuse of PIL.

The courts now examine:

• Whether the petitioner has a genuine concern for public welfare.
• Whether the issue is serious and affects the larger public.
• Whether the petition is filed in good faith.

Present and Future:

Today, PIL continues to be an important tool for social justice. However, the courts now maintain a balance between activism and restraint. While still open to genuine causes, they discourage misuse. The evolution of PIL has strengthened democratic values, promoted legal awareness, and brought the courts closer to the common people.

Recent Developments in Public Interest Litigation:

In April–May 2025, the Supreme Court instituted major interventions in policy and electoral governance. It requested responses in a PIL challenging the increase of maximum voters per polling booth (from 1,200 to 1,500), and ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to preserve CCTV recordings of polling stations for ongoing scrutiny. The bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna emphasized the importance of maintaining electoral integrity.  Similarly, under the case titled In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025[10], SC consolidated petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the newly enacted Act and barred any alterations to waqf properties pending hearing—delaying any implementation until at least early May.[11]

The Supreme Court also demonstrated its intolerance toward misuse of PIL. In one instance, it dismissed a PIL accusing Maharashtra officials of protocol breach during the Chief Justice’s visit, calling it a “publicity interest litigation” and imposing ₹7,000 costs on the petitioner[12]. In another instance, it rejected a PIL from Dr. K.M. Cherian seeking implementation of NITI Aayog medical research recommendations, clarifying that PILs cannot serve personal grievances[13].

Multiple High Courts across India have responded to PILs covering issues of public interest in sectors like healthcare, environment, and governance. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed state authorities to submit affidavits on medical infrastructure (e.g. availability of CT/MRI machines) across district hospitals under a PIL concerning poor facilities in Malerkotla Civil Hospital—extending the inquiry to Chandigarh as well. The Delhi High Court sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Government over a PIL alleging traffic violations by delivery riders transporting bulky or oversized items, emphasizing public safety risks. The court scheduled a hearing for October[14]. In Madhya Pradesh, the Indore bench reviewed a PIL on traffic management and urban encroachments, urging policy reforms and public awareness initiatives.

Environmental concerns have also triggered judicial cleanup efforts. The Orissa High Court issued notices in response to a PIL about illegal waste dumping near Bhubaneswar’s Sainik School, highlighting risks of soil and water pollution and ordering state responses by early August. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) intervened following a PIL against illegal heritage-area hotels and market encroachments in Santiniketan’s Sonajhuri forest, demanding action from forest and pollution authorities.

The Bombay High Court recently accepted a PIL alleging online delivery and sale of banned pan masala and gutka in Maharashtra, issuing notices to relevant state bodies about possible violations under food safety and public health laws.

On sensitive societal issues, the Supreme Court has taken up a PIL filed by activist Santa Khurai, challenging permanent bans on blood donation by transgender individuals, gay/bisexual men, and sex workers. The court issued notices to the Union of India on grounds of discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.

Suggestions:

To enhance the effectiveness of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), it is crucial to introduce measures that prevent its misuse for personal or political gain. Courts can implement stricter scrutiny at the admission stage to filter frivolous petitions. Dedicated PIL benches in High Courts and the Supreme Court can ensure speedy disposal of genuine cases. Legal aid and awareness programs should be strengthened to empower marginalized communities to access justice through PILs. Moreover, guidelines can be periodically updated to adapt to emerging public concerns. These steps would preserve the true spirit of PIL—ensuring justice for all and upholding constitutional rights.

Conclusions:

Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a powerful tool to uphold constitutional values and ensure justice for the voiceless and marginalized. It has significantly expanded the scope of access to justice by allowing individuals and organizations to raise matters of public concern. However, to preserve its sanctity, it is essential to prevent its misuse and ensure that only genuine cases reach the courts. When used responsibly, PIL can continue to serve as a vital instrument for social change and legal reform.

Reference(S):

Public Interest Litigation: Concept and Practice in India, PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/public-interest-litigation-concept-and-practice-in-india (last visited July 21, 2025).

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, National Judicial Academy, https://nja.gov.in/PIL.aspx (last visited July 21, 2025).

In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance, LiveLaw.in, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-pil-waqf-amendment-act-2025-248910 (last visited July 21, 2025).

SC Dismisses PIL Against Maha Officials, Calls It Publicity Interest Litigation, Outlook India, https://www.outlookindia.com/national/sc-dismisses-pil-against-maha-officials-calls-it-publicity-interest-litigation (last visited July 21, 2025).

PIL Cases and Guidelines in India, IndiaKanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1913897/ (last visited July 21, 2025).

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2022).

V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Mahendra Pal Singh ed., 14th ed. 2021).

S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (Oxford Univ. Press 2002).

S.C. Tripathi, Public Interest Litigation: Legal Aid and Lok Adalats (7th ed. 2020).

Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (2021 ed.).

[1] Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.

[2] M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 176.

[3] Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 241.

[4] National Judicial Academy, Public Interest Litigation Primer, National Judicial Academy (India), https://nja.gov.in (last visited July 21, 2025).

[5] Supreme Court of India, Guidelines for Filing Public Interest Litigation, Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in (last visited July 21, 2025).

[6] Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.

[7] S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. S.C.C. 87 (India).

[8] Legal Service India, Public Interest Litigation in India, LegalServiceIndia.com, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-307-public-interest-litigation.html (last visited July 21, 2025).

[9] State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 S.C.C. 402 (India).

[10] In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, W.P. (C) No. 678 of 2025 (India).

[11] Public Interest Litigation Can’t Be Entertained When It Raises Personal Grievances: Supreme Court, LiveLaw (Mar. 12, 2024), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/public-interest-litigation-cant-be-entertained-when-it-raises-personal-grievances-supreme-court-247808.

[12] SC Dismisses PIL Against Maha Officials, Calls It Publicity Interest Litigation, Outlook India (Apr. 20, 2024), https://www.outlookindia.com/national/sc-dismisses-pil-against-maha-officials-calls-it-publicity-interest-litigation.

[13] Public Interest Litigation Can’t Be Entertained When It Raises Personal Grievances: Supreme Court, LiveLaw (Mar. 12, 2024), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/public-interest-litigation-cant-be-entertained-when-it-raises-personal-grievances-supreme-court-247808.

[14] HC Seeks Response on Delivery Rider Violations, Times of India (Apr. 23, 2024), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/hc-seeks-response-on-delivery-rider-violations/articleshow/122589299.cms.