Public Interest Litigation (PIL) changed the way people interact with constitutional courts. Instead of only affected individuals going to court, PIL allows concerned citizens, NGOs, or groups to raise issues that affect the public at large – environment, corruption, prisoners’ rights, disabled access, and much more.
The basic idea is: when a large number of people suffer due to government inaction or wrongful action, and they themselves can’t easily approach the court (maybe they are poor, unorganised, or vulnerable), someone else can knock the court’s door for them. Courts in turn relax technical rules of “locus standi” (standing) and focus on the substance of the injustice.
However, PIL is not a free pass for personal agendas, business rivalries, or publicity stunts. Courts have become more strict over time, warning against “publicity interest litigation” and imposing costs on frivolous petitions.
In a genuine PIL, the petitioner must show:
- The issue affects a class of people, not just their private problem,
- There is a violation of fundamental or legal rights,
- Existing mechanisms have failed or are ineffective.
If satisfied, courts can pass wide orders: setting guidelines, monitoring investigations, directing policy changes, or appointing committees. Done right, PIL becomes a powerful tool to clean up governance. Done wrong, it clogs the system and distracts from genuine cases.
