PIL was conceived as a sword for the marginalised but risks becoming a shield for the privileged. In light of recent concerns over agenda-driven litigation, examine the challenges

GS2 Indian Constitution
PIL was conceived as a sword for the marginalised but risks becoming a shield for the privileged. In light of recent concerns over agenda-driven litigation, examine the challenges facing PIL jurisdiction and suggest reforms to restore its original mandate.

Examine

  • 15 marks
  • 8 min
  • 250 words
  • Medium

The Hindu

Read article →

Introduction

  • Public Interest Litigation (PIL) expanded access to justice under Articles 32 & 226, envisioned as a tool for the voiceless. However, concerns over agenda-driven and frivolous petitions risk diluting its transformative role.

Original Mandate of PIL

  • Relaxed locus standi to address rights of marginalised groups.
  • Landmark cases: S.P. Gupta (1981), Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), Vishaka (1997)—advanced Articles 21, 23, 39A.
  • Focus on social justice, environmental protection, and governance accountability.

Emerging Challenges

  • Frivolous & Motivated PILs: Filed for publicity, political vendetta, or private gain—termed “Publicity Interest Litigation” by SC.
  • Judicial Overreach: Courts entering policy domains, raising separation of powers concerns (BALCO, 2002).
  • Docket Explosion: Genuine cases delayed due to judicial backlog.
  • Forum Shopping: Petitioners choose favourable benches, undermining consistency.
  • Elite Capture: Marginalised voices crowded out by resource-rich litigants.

Judicial Concerns & Safeguards

  • State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): Issued guidelines to curb misuse.
  • Imposition of exemplary costs in frivolous cases.
  • Emphasis on bona fides and public injury.

Reforms to Restore PIL’s Mandate

  • Stricter Admission Filters: Mandatory affidavits on credentials, funding sources, and intent.
  • Screening Committees in High Courts to vet PILs.
  • Cost Regime: Heavy penalties for abuse; incentives for genuine causes.
  • Prioritisation Framework: Fast-track cases involving fundamental rights of vulnerable groups.
  • Strengthen Legal Aid (NALSA): Empower marginalised to directly access courts.
  • Judicial Restraint: Adhere to institutional competence in policy matters.

Conclusion

  • PIL remains vital to India’s constitutional democracy, but preserving its credibility and purpose requires balancing access with accountability, ensuring it serves as a sword for justice—not a shield for privilege.