Comment: Public interest litigation. (1994, 20 Marks)
Public interest litigation (PIL) is litigation in which a court, relaxing the rule that only an injured party may sue, hears any bona fide person or group on behalf of those unable to approach it, or acts on its own motion. The label is American; the Indian practice, built after the Emergency by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, went much further — which is why Upendra Baxi preferred to call it social action litigation, the litigation of the rightless.
Distinctive features
- Relaxed standing — S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) allowed any public-spirited citizen to sue for those disabled by poverty or social disadvantage.
- Epistolary and suo motu jurisdiction — letters, telegrams and news reports registered as petitions.
- Inquisitorial procedure — court-appointed commissioners and amici gather facts instead of adversarial pleading.
- Collaborative, not hostile — the state is treated as a partner in securing a right rather than an opponent.
- Structural remedies — guidelines, monitoring committees and continuing mandamus, with Article 21 read alongside the Directive Principles.
Three phases
In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) the Court, speaking through Justice Dalveer Bhandari, itself traced three phases:
| Phase | Focus | Illustrations |
|---|---|---|
| I (late 1970s–80s) | Rights of the marginalised under Article 21 | Hussainara Khatoon (1979) on undertrials; Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) on bonded labour |
| II | Ecology, forests, wildlife | M. C. Mehta line (absolute liability, 1986; CNG for Delhi); T. N. Godavarman forest orders from 1996 |
| III | Probity in governance | Vineet Narain (1997) on CBI insulation; 2G licences cancelled (2012) |
Achievements
- Access: the poor and the invisible — prisoners, bonded labourers, inmates of protective homes — became parties to constitutional law.
- Rights creation: livelihood, shelter, food, health and a clean environment became enforceable; the PUCL right-to-food litigation from 2001 turned scheme benefits into entitlements and fed into the National Food Security Act 2013.
- Vacuum-filling: Vishaka (1997) guidelines governed workplace harassment until the 2013 Act.
- Accountability: candidate disclosure, and in 2024 the unanimous striking down of electoral bonds on a petition by ADR and others.
Criticism
- Drift from its constituency. Baxi’s social action litigation became litigation by organised middle-class interests — urban aesthetics, sports administration, appointments. Critics now speak of “publicity interest litigation”.
- Procedure as the problem. Anuj Bhuwania, Courting the People (2017), argues that abandoning pleadings, evidence and identified parties made PIL unaccountable; slum demolitions ordered in Delhi on “public interest” petitions displaced residents who were never heard.
- Policy overreach. In BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India (2001) the Court itself held the wisdom of economic policy beyond judicial review, and PIL no vehicle for contesting disinvestment.
- Weak delivery. Declarations outrun compliance — police-reform directions in Prakash Singh (2006) remain largely unimplemented.
- Docket cost. PIL competes with a Supreme Court backlog of roughly 95,000 cases.
Chaufal responded with directions: High Courts to frame PIL rules, verify petitioners’ credentials and the contents of petitions, entertain only matters of substantial public interest, and impose exemplary costs for oblique motives.
PIL today
Suo motu action remains the Court’s reflex. In August 2025 a two-judge bench, acting on a news report, ordered stray dogs in Delhi-NCR removed to shelters; within days a three-judge bench modified it to sterilise-and-release. It captures PIL’s strength — speed — and its weakness: policy made without hearing those affected or weighing alternatives.
Conclusion
PIL remains Indian constitutionalism’s most original contribution — it democratised access to the highest court. Its legitimacy, however, depends on returning to its origin: a remedy for those who cannot reach the political process, not a shortcut for those who can.