INTRODUCTION
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means a lawsuit that is filed in a court of law by a person or the court itself, representing the public interest at large. It may include matters such as environmental issues, pollution, road safety, crime against women, child labor, government jobs, etc. PIL is neither defined nor mentioned in the Constitution of India, but our judges have interpreted it over time. The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was first used by an American academic, Abram Chayes, for the lawyers and public workers who used law and order to tackle prevalent social issues in the United States.[1].
An adversarial system has existed in India since the beginning. It is a system in which two conflicting parties file a lawsuit in court, in front of a neutral judge, who makes the judgment and gives the final verdict.[2]. But gradually it was observed that this system had led to injustice to the poor sections of Indian society since they did not have the resources to present their case. Hence, the concept of PIL was developed by our judges. A PIL can be filed by any individual or organization if the rights of the common public are being infringed. It should be in the general public interest, and the person filing the PIL should not be related to the case.[3].
PIL is one of the strongest tools possessed by the Judiciary. Through it, the judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution, protecting and safeguarding the rights of the Indian citizens. It also directs the Executive and the Legislature against the arbitrary use of power and improves transparency and accountability.[4].
EVOLUTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA
The concept of public interest litigation was adopted from the United States of America.[5] But the evolution of PIL has been very different in India. After the Independence of our country, the courts used to strictly follow the locus standi system. Locus standi means that only the person who has been directly affected can approach the court and file the lawsuit. Due to this, the courts were not able to serve the poor and marginalized sections of society, as they were mostly illiterate and could not afford the costs incurred during a court case.
In these dire circumstances, the emergency of 1975 exacerbated the situation. It was proclaimed by the then Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi.[6] It was done for purely her personal and political benefit. But due to this, the citizens suffered as their fundamental rights were totally suspended, and they were subjected to unlawful treatment. At that time, the citizens of India were looking up to the Supreme Court, expecting the highest court of law to safeguard their rights and liberties. But the court failed to do so. As a result, the Supreme Court became unpopular among the masses.
Hence, to restore the faith of the masses, the Supreme Court expanded its jurisdiction by liberal interpretation of locus standi. It started with the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs the State of Bihar.[7] In this case, a lawyer, Kapila Hingorani, filed a writ in the Supreme Court highlighting the conditions of undertrial prisoners in the jails of Patna and Muzaffarpur. After reading a newspaper article about 18 undertrial inmates in Bihar who had been held for longer than the maximum sentences they could receive if found guilty, she filed a habeas corpus petition. Justice P.N. Bhagwati accepted the petition and ordered the immediate release of seventy of these inmates.
This case laid the foundation for PIL jurisprudence in India and ultimately resulted in the release of almost 40,000 undertrial inmates nationwide. Hence, she is frequently referred to as the “Mother of Public Interest Litigation” in India because of this groundbreaking work.[8]
To make justice more accessible, they loosened procedural restrictions and even started considering public letters as petitions. This change was a part of a larger change in the Supreme Court’s stance after the suspension of fundamental rights during the Emergency era (1975-77), which resulted in a renewed judicial commitment to upholding the citizens’ rights.
The Supreme Court’s Article 32[9] and the High Courts’ Article 226[10] constitutional provisions, which give these courts the authority to issue directives or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights, provide the legal basis for Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. The PIL process is further strengthened by the judiciary’s judicial review authority, which was acknowledged as a fundamental component of the Constitution in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case.[11]
During the post-Emergency period (after 1977), Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer played a key role in creating the PIL framework in India.
CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigations have had a transformative effect on the Indian Judiciary. Before the creation of PIL, the courts mostly limited their authority to decide cases involving private disputes or direct state action against people. However, the judiciary’s role was broadened to address issues impacting significant segments of society with the advent of PIL in the late 1970s.
The relaxation of the traditional locus standi rule, which previously required only an aggrieved party to approach the court, was one of the most important changes brought about by PIL.
As a result, the judiciary was able to address issues like gender rights, labor exploitation, environmental protection, and custodial violence, democratizing access to justice. For example, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)[12] acknowledged the right to a speedy trial for undertrials incarcerated, while Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)[13] addressed the rights of bonded laborers.
The judiciary’s function as an accountability tool was reinforced by PIL. The judiciary became a vital check on the legislative and executive by considering the petitions against corruption, inaction, and power abuse. This improved the rule of law and increased public access to the courts.
One of the most significant judicial innovations in India is the PIL, which transforms the judiciary from a dispute resolution body to an active contributor to the advancement of constitutional values.
Author(s) Name: Ashi Singh (KES Law College)
References:
[1] Dr (Mrs) Saroj Bohra, ‘Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice’ (Manupatra) <https://www.manupatra.com/roundup/379/articles/public%20interest%20litigation.pdf >accessed 22 September 2025
[2] Meera Patel and Shafaq Gupta, ‘Public Interest Litigation’ (iPleaders)< https://blog.ipleaders.in/public-interest-litigation-3/ >accessed 22 September 2025
[3] ibid
[4] S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India (Oxford University Press, 2002)
[5] ‘Public Interest Litigation in India: A Democratic Tool for Justice’ (The EduLaw) <https://www.theedulaw.in/content/articles/53/Public-Interest-Litigation-in-India:-A-Democratic-Tool-for-Justice> accessed 24 September 2025
[6] Zachary Holladay, ‘Public Interest Litigation in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations’ (2012) 19(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 555 <https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol19/iss2/9> accessed 24 September 2025
[7] Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCR 532
[8] Public Interest Litigation in India: A Democratic Tool for Justice (n 5)
[9] Constitution of India, art 32
[10] Constitution of India, art 226
[11] Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299
[12] Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (n 7)
[13] Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) AIR 1984 SC 802
