The Evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India: Empowering the Marginalized

Imagine being locked in jail for years – not because you were found guilty, but simply because the legal system forgot about you. In 1979, a lawyer named Kapila Hingorani read a newspaper report about exactly this situation involving undertrial prisoners in Bihar. She had no personal stake in the matter. She had not been wronged herself. Yet she walked into the Supreme Court and filed a petition on their behalf. That single act sparked one of the most significant legal revolutions in Indian history – the rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

What is public interest litigation? 🔗

PIL is a legal mechanism that allows any public-spirited citizen or organisation to approach the Supreme Court (under Article 32 of the Constitution) or a High Court (under Article 226) on behalf of individuals or groups who are unable to seek justice themselves – due to poverty, illiteracy, illegal detention, or other socio-economic disadvantages. Unlike traditional litigation, which resolves disputes between two opposing parties, PIL is directed at larger societal issues that affect the public at large.

Crucially, PIL dismantles the rigid rule of locus standi – the traditional requirement that only a person whose rights have been personally violated can approach a court. Under PIL, any concerned citizen acting in good faith can knock on the doors of justice on behalf of others. This makes PIL a deeply democratic legal instrument.

Before PIL: the closed doors of Indian courts 🔗

To understand how transformative PIL has been, it helps to know what came before it. Prior to the 1980s, the Indian judiciary largely followed the Anglo-Saxon adversarial model of litigation – a system inherited from British rule. Under this model, courts were passive referees, waiting for the directly aggrieved party to bring a dispute. The judiciary did not intervene on its own, and the procedural requirements were rigid and often expensive.

This meant that millions of Indians – bonded labourers, under-trial prisoners, slum dwellers, children in exploitative labour – had no practical access to courts. High costs and complicated procedures made equal access to justice a mere slogan for the destitute and underprivileged. The law existed on paper; for many, it remained out of reach.

The post-emergency context: why PIL emerged when it did 🔗

The period following India’s Emergency (1975-77) was one of deep institutional reckoning. The Emergency had exposed how vulnerable fundamental rights were to executive overreach. Courts had been complicit in curtailing civil liberties. When democracy was restored, there was a genuine appetite – both within the judiciary and civil society – for a more activist, people-oriented legal system.

It was in this climate that Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer began laying the intellectual and procedural groundwork for PIL. Both justices were pioneers who advocated for greater judicial intervention to protect fundamental rights, especially for those who were poor, uneducated, or marginalised. Their judicial philosophy was straightforward: if the Constitution guaranteed rights to all citizens, then the courts had a duty to ensure those rights were accessible to all citizens – not just those who could afford lawyers.

Justice Krishna Iyer planted an early seed in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976), where he observed that collective societal issues could be addressed through legal channels and that public interest must be interpreted expansively when a remedy is shared by a considerable number of people, particularly the weaker sections.

The first PIL: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) 🔗

The case that is widely regarded as the first true PIL in India arose from that newspaper report Kapila Hingorani read in 1979. The report described undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been languishing in jail for periods longer than the maximum sentence they would have received even if convicted. Hingorani filed a habeas corpus petition – not for one person, but for an entire class of prisoners.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati immediately ordered the release of 70 such undertrial prisoners, and the case eventually led to the release of almost 40,000 undertrial prisoners across India. The court also established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and affirmed the right to free legal aid.

What made this case revolutionary was not just the outcome – it was the method. For the first time, a court had allowed someone with no personal stake in a matter to bring a case on behalf of a disadvantaged group. The walls of locus standi had cracked open.

Defining PIL: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) 🔗

If Hussainara Khatoon cracked the door open, the S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) case – the famous “Judges’ Transfer Case” – blew it off its hinges. This case is considered the formal crystallisation of PIL jurisprudence in India.

A group of senior advocates challenged government orders relating to the non-appointment and short-term transfer of High Court judges, arguing that executive interference was undermining judicial independence. The government objected that the petitioners had no locus standi since it was the judges themselves, not the lawyers, who were the aggrieved parties.

Justice Bhagwati rejected this argument emphatically. The court held that any member of the public acting in good faith could approach the court in matters of public concern, even if not personally affected. It also recognised that in a country like India, with widespread poverty and illiteracy, strict adherence to traditional locus standi rules would effectively deny justice to vast sections of the population.

The court went further, allowing even letters written by individuals to be treated as writ petitions. This procedural innovation made access to the Supreme Court genuinely accessible – a person in a remote village could write a letter describing a rights violation, and the court could take cognisance of it as a PIL. Justice Bhagwati elevated the liberalisation of locus standi to a key ingredient in the true purpose of the judicial function – failing which the law would remain a paper parchment with no real meaning for those who needed it most.

Phases of PIL evolution in India 🔗

Phase I (1980s): rights of the marginalised 🔗

The first decade of PIL was defined by cases focused on the rights of the most vulnerable. Courts took up matters involving bonded labour, prison conditions, child labour, rights of women, and environmental harm. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, a letter from a social reform group about bonded labourers was treated as a PIL petition, and the Supreme Court intervened directly to address this deeply entrenched form of exploitation. PIL in this phase was a genuine weapon for social justice – used to challenge governmental lawlessness and enforce constitutional promises that had been ignored for decades.

Phase II (1990s): environmental and public governance PILs 🔗

The 1990s saw PIL expand to encompass environmental protection and issues of public governance. The most significant figure of this era was M.C. Mehta, whose environmental PILs produced landmark rulings. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that any concerned citizen could seek enforcement of environmental laws for the public good, regardless of whether they personally owned land along a polluted river. This extended PIL’s reach from human rights into the domain of the environment, setting a precedent for public interest litigation on issues like Ganga pollution, vehicular emissions, and industrial waste.

Another watershed moment in PIL’s evolution came with Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court, responding to a PIL filed by women’s rights groups, recognised sexual harassment as a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and issued binding guidelines that remained the law until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act was passed in 2013.

Phase III (2000s onwards): growing scrutiny and misuse 🔗

As PIL’s popularity grew, so did its misuse. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Supreme Court was repeatedly noting the distinction between a “genuine” petitioner and a “busybody”. PILs began being filed for publicity, political agendas, or private grievances dressed up as public interest. Courts started cautioning that PIL was “a weapon to be used with great care and circumspection” and not a tool for private malice or vested interests.

To preserve the integrity of PIL, the Supreme Court issued guidelines requiring courts to verify the credentials of petitioners, discourage frivolous filings, and ensure that PILs genuinely serve a public purpose. The tension between keeping PIL accessible and preventing its abuse remains one of the defining challenges of this legal mechanism today.

PIL’s constitutional footing 🔗

PIL is not just a judicial innovation – it is deeply grounded in the Constitution. Article 39A directs the state to secure equal justice and provide free legal aid to ensure opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. PIL gives practical shape to this directive. It operationalises the Constitution’s promise of equal justice by removing procedural barriers that would otherwise prevent the poor and marginalised from approaching courts.

Under the current framework, a PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and in a High Court under Article 226. Importantly, PIL can only be filed against state or central governments and public authorities – not against private parties. This reflects PIL’s core purpose: holding the state and its agencies accountable to constitutional obligations.

Why PIL matters: a departure from the adversarial model 🔗

Traditional litigation is adversarial – two parties in conflict, fighting for their individual interests. PIL breaks this mould entirely. It is cooperative in nature, involving the petitioner, the state or public authority, and the court working together to enforce constitutional rights for vulnerable groups. The court does not wait passively; it may appoint commissions, issue interim orders, and monitor compliance over time.

PIL also functions as a strategic arm of the legal aid movement. It acknowledges that for a large section of Indian society – those living in poverty, those unaware of their rights, those too intimidated to approach a court – individual litigation is simply not a realistic option. By allowing a concerned citizen or NGO to litigate on their behalf, PIL democratises access to justice in a way that few legal innovations have managed to do.

The courts can also take up matters suo motu – on their own initiative, without anyone filing a petition – which further extends PIL’s reach to situations where even public-spirited individuals may not be aware of an ongoing injustice.

PIL’s lasting significance in Indian legal history 🔗

From freeing 40,000 undertrial prisoners to issuing landmark guidelines on workplace sexual harassment; from cleaning up the Ganga to protecting forest cover – PIL has been at the centre of some of India’s most consequential legal developments. It has transformed the judiciary from a passive dispute resolver into an active guardian of constitutional values.

What makes the story of PIL particularly compelling is where it began: with a lawyer reading a newspaper, feeling outraged, and deciding to act. It is a reminder that the most powerful legal tools are often those that lower the barriers to justice, rather than raise them.

What do you think? PIL was designed to give voice to those who cannot speak for themselves in court – but as it has expanded, courts have had to guard against misuse. Where should the line be drawn between genuine public interest and litigation filed for other motives? And in an age of growing judicial dockets, can PIL continue to be both accessible and effective?

References

1. https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-542-public-interest-litigation-genesis-and-evolution.html
3. https://www.nextias.com/blog/public-interest-litigation/
4. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-story-of-the-pil/
5. https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/sp-gupta-vs-union-of-india-a-constitutional-landmark-in-judicial-independence-and-transparency/
6. https://www.scobserver.in/75-years-of-sc/what-a-jagged-little-pil-the-peoples-court-at-75/
7. https://udrc.lkouniv.ac.in/Content/DepartmentContent/SM_3e1ad9b2-7f01-4407-931a-c849c67cad02_30.pdf
8. https://corpbiz.io/learning/origin-and-meaning-of-public-interest-litigation-in-india/
9. https://blog.ipleaders.in/origin-and-development-of-pil-in-india/