Public Interest Litigation: courts for people who cannot reach them

Normally, only a person directly affected by a wrong can go to court. Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, relaxes that rule. It allows a public-spirited person or organisation to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, or a High Court under Article 226, on behalf of people who cannot approach the court themselves because of poverty, illiteracy, detention, or social disadvantage. PIL is not defined in the Constitution or in a single statute; it developed through judgments.

The shift began in the late 1970s. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), a petition filed on behalf of undertrial prisoners in Bihar after a newspaper report drew attention to their plight was taken up by the Supreme Court, which addressed the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Court broadened standing further, holding that any member of the public acting in good faith could seek enforcement of constitutional or legal rights for those unable to do so. Later, courts accepted letters and newspaper reports as petitions in some cases, and used PIL to address bonded labour, prison conditions, environmental harm, and workplace sexual harassment — including the Vishaka guidelines, which operated before Parliament legislated on the subject.

PIL changed what courts do. Instead of only deciding a dispute between two parties, a court in a PIL may monitor implementation over time, appoint committees or experts, and issue continuing directions. Supporters say this made constitutional rights real for people who would otherwise have no lawyer, no money, and no voice. Critics say PIL has also been misused for publicity, private interest, or political battles, and that courts sometimes enter areas better handled by legislatures and administrators. Courts have responded by screening petitions more strictly and, in some cases, imposing costs for frivolous filings.

For students, PIL raises a lasting question about the judicial role. Is a court mainly a neutral umpire, or can it also be an instrument of social change? PIL suggests it can be both at different times — but only if the petitioner acts in genuine public interest and the court stays within constitutional limits.