Empowering the Marginalized through Public Interest Litigation in India

India has one of the most unequal access-to-justice landscapes in the world. Millions of people – bonded laborers, prison undertrials, pavement dwellers, sexual harassment survivors – have historically lacked the financial means, social capital, or literacy to knock on a court’s door. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was born precisely to fix this. It is a legal mechanism that allows a third party – a concerned citizen, a lawyer, an NGO – to approach the Supreme Court or a High Court on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves. In doing that, PIL fundamentally reimagined who the Indian judiciary speaks for.

What PIL actually means 🔗

At its core, Public Interest Litigation is litigation filed not to vindicate a personal grievance but to protect or enforce a right that belongs to the public at large – particularly those who are poor, marginalized, or otherwise unable to seek legal recourse. Unlike conventional litigation, which requires the petitioner to be directly and personally aggrieved, PIL removes that barrier entirely.

The constitutional basis for filing a PIL rests on two key provisions. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, a PIL can be filed directly in the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Under Article 226, the same can be done before a High Court. A PIL can also be filed before a Magistrate’s Court under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate cases. Importantly, a PIL can be filed against the State or Central Government, municipal authorities, or any body falling under the definition of “State” as given in Article 12 of the Constitution. Private parties can be added as respondents only where the State is also a party.

Where it came from: the post-Emergency context 🔗

PIL did not emerge in a vacuum. To understand its origins, one has to go back to India’s Emergency period (1975-1977), when civil liberties were suspended, political opponents were jailed, and the Supreme Court itself became complicit in some of those excesses. After the Emergency ended, the Court underwent a deliberate transformation. It began relaxing procedural rules as a way of restoring public trust and asserting its role as a protector of fundamental rights. Treating ordinary letters from citizens as writ petitions – a practice called epistolary jurisdiction – was one of the most significant of these changes.

The earliest seeds of PIL were planted by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1976 in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai, where a trade union was permitted to represent a larger group of workers. But the first fully reported PIL case came in 1979: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. A letter signed by prisoners from Bihar jails – detailing how undertrials had been held for periods far exceeding the maximum sentence they could have received – reached the Supreme Court through advocate Kapila Hingorani. Justice P.N. Bhagwati accepted it as a writ petition. The result was the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners and the Court’s recognition that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.

The legal doctrine that made PIL possible: relaxing locus standi 🔗

Before PIL, the traditional rule of locus standi required that only the person directly injured by a legal wrong could approach a court. This rule effectively locked out most of India’s poor. PIL dismantled it. In the landmark 1981 case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India – also known as the Judges Transfer Case – Justice Bhagwati articulated a new standard: where a legal wrong is caused to a person or class of persons who are unable to approach the court due to poverty, helplessness, or social or economic disadvantage, any member of the public acting in good faith can file a petition on their behalf before the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32.

This ruling was transformative. It formally recognized that the courts must reach out to those who cannot reach the courts themselves. As the Supreme Court Observer notes, Justice Bhagwati elevated the liberalization of locus standi to a key ingredient of the “true purpose of the judicial function” – an acknowledgment that without this relaxation, justice would remain a paper promise for millions of Indians. The one check the Court retained was that the petitioner must be acting bona fide – not for personal gain, political motives, or to harass others.

Phases of PIL’s evolution 🔗

PIL’s journey in India can be broadly understood in phases. Phase I (1980s) was the most idealistic: petitions focused squarely on the rights of the marginalized – prisoners, bonded laborers, pavement dwellers, victims of custodial violence. Phase II (1990s) saw PIL expand into environmental and governance issues, with individual lawyers and NGOs bringing systemic environmental causes before the courts. Phase III (2000s onwards) has been more contested: PIL became a vehicle for a far broader set of issues, including some that critics argue had little to do with the poor and everything to do with publicity or private interest.

This evolution reflects a judiciary that increasingly saw itself as an active guardian of constitutional values rather than a passive dispute-resolver. Through PIL, the Court developed the doctrine of continuing mandamus – the ability to retain jurisdiction over a matter, issue directions to the government, and monitor compliance over time, rather than simply delivering a one-time verdict.

Landmark PIL cases that changed India 🔗

The real measure of PIL’s impact lies in its landmark judgments.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) 🔗

Already mentioned as the first PIL, this case established the right to a speedy trial as part of the right to life under Article 21. It directly led to the release of tens of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had been forgotten by the system.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 🔗

The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case was triggered by a letter from a social reform organization documenting bonded labor practices in quarries. The Supreme Court directed the release and rehabilitation of bonded laborers and laid down comprehensive guidelines for enforcing the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. This case gave PIL its moral compass in the area of economic rights.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986 onwards) 🔗

Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta filed a series of PILs that fundamentally reshaped India’s environmental jurisprudence. His PILs on Ganga pollution led to the closure of polluting industries and the establishment of the “polluter pays” principle in Indian law – the idea that those who cause environmental damage must bear the cost of remediation. Later cases led to restrictions on industrial activity near the Taj Mahal and significant pollution controls in Delhi.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 🔗

This PIL challenged the eviction of pavement dwellers in Mumbai without providing alternative accommodation. The Supreme Court recognized that the right to livelihood is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21. Evicting people from their homes without providing alternatives, the Court held, amounted to a violation of this fundamental right.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 🔗

This is perhaps the most socially significant PIL in the area of gender justice. After social worker Bhanwari Devi – who had resisted child marriage – was gang-raped and found no justice through ordinary legal channels, a PIL was filed before the Supreme Court. Since no legislation on workplace sexual harassment existed at the time, the Court stepped in and framed the Vishaka Guidelines – a comprehensive framework to protect women at work – which was treated as binding law until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. This case showed how PIL can fill critical legislative gaps in the protection of constitutional rights.

PIL’s constitutional roots 🔗

PIL draws its legitimacy from multiple provisions of the Constitution. Article 21 – the right to life and personal liberty – has been interpreted expansively by the judiciary to include rights to health, education, a clean environment, livelihood, and a life of dignity. Article 39A directs the State to ensure that legal system operates on the basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid to ensure justice is not denied to any citizen on account of economic or other disabilities. PIL operationalizes these directives in a direct and enforceable way. By treating letters as petitions and relaxing standing rules, the courts brought the constitutional promise of equal justice out of the preamble and into practice.

How to file a PIL 🔗

Filing a PIL is procedurally similar to filing a writ petition, though with a lower threshold for standing. Any citizen or social action group acting in good faith can file a PIL before the Supreme Court under Article 32 (four copies of the petition plus one) or before a High Court under Article 226 (two copies). An advance copy must be served on each respondent. Importantly, a PIL cannot be filed against a purely private party – there must be a public authority involved. Courts also insist that the matter must be of genuine public concern; petitions filed for personal gain, vendetta, or publicity are liable to be dismissed, and the Court has the power to impose exemplary costs on such petitioners.

The ongoing debate: PIL’s promise and its limits 🔗

PIL remains a powerful but contested tool. On the positive side, it has democratized access to justice, produced path-breaking jurisprudence on environmental law, labor rights, women’s rights, and prisoners’ rights, and forced accountability on an executive that was often indifferent to the constitutional rights of the poor. Critics, however, point out that PIL has increasingly been used by those with vested interests – corporate, political, and personal – rather than for the poor and oppressed in whose name it was originally conceived. Judicial overreach is another concern: courts issuing detailed administrative directions through PIL have sometimes encroached on the domain of the legislature and executive. The problem of inordinate delays in PIL cases – sometimes stretching for decades – has also meant that many landmark directions remain on paper.

The challenge for PIL today is to reclaim its original purpose: as a tool of last resort for those who have nowhere else to turn, not a first resort for those who have everything to gain. The Supreme Court has periodically acknowledged this, warning against petitions that use public interest as a “beautiful veil” to hide private motivations. Keeping PIL’s promise alive requires both a vigilant judiciary and a legal community that is committed to using it responsibly.

What do you think? Given that PIL was conceived specifically for those who cannot access the courts themselves, should there be a stricter gatekeeping mechanism to prevent well-resourced individuals and political actors from using it for personal or publicity-driven ends? And with courts already overburdened, how do you think the judiciary should balance its role as protector of constitutional rights with the need to avoid deep involvement in executive and legislative policy-making?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India
2. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-story-of-the-pil/
3. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/public-interest-litigation
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112850760/
5. https://www.scobserver.in/75-years-of-sc/what-a-jagged-little-pil-the-peoples-court-at-75/
6. https://drishtijudiciary.com/blog/understanding-pils-impact-on-society-and-judicial-overreach
7. https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/public-interest-litigation-pil-in-india-a-legal-revolution
8. https://sheokandlegal.com/articles/pil-in-india-who-can-file-and-what-cases-are-allowed/
9. https://www.apnilaw.com/upsc/indian-constitution/public-interest-litigation-pil-in-india-landmark-cases-and-their-impact/
10. https://corpbiz.io/learning/origin-and-meaning-of-public-interest-litigation-in-india/
11. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-542-public-interest-litigation-genesis-and-evolution.html
12. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l273-Public-Interest-Litigation.html