Public Interest Litigation in India: Evolving Jurisprudence and Judicial Innovation

Public interest litigation (PIL) is defined as litigation that serves the public interest. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution includes a tool that directly connects the public and the judiciary. Public Interest Litigation may be filed in a court of law by the court suo motu, rather than the aggrieved party or a third party. The concept of public interest litigation is consistent with the principles enshrined in Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, which seeks to preserve and provide quick social justice through the use of the law. Prior to the 1980s, only the aggrieved party could seek justice in court. Following the emergency, the high court reached out to the people, creating a mechanism for any member of the public or an NGO to approach the court seeking legal remedy in those cases where the public interest is threatened. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to hear PILs in court. This article examines the dynamic evolution of the Indian judiciary in pursuit of the constitutional goals of equality, liberty and justice. The Apex Court and the High Courts have expanded the scope of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 32 by addressing the issues ranging from environmental preservation and gender justice to transparency, governance, and human rights. This evolving jurisprudence has positioned PIL as both a tool of empowerment and a mechanism of judicial creativity in bridging gaps left by legislative and executive inaction. However, concerns of overuse, misuse, and judicial overreach highlight the need for a balanced approach. Thus, the researcher in this Article has exemplified the judiciary’s role as a catalyst for social transformation through the tool of PIL while simultaneously underscoring the challenges of sustaining its legitimacy within a democratic framework.