Public Interest Litigation has democratised access to justice, but it has also expanded judicial power into domains of governance. Discuss.

PIL is the Constitution's most creative jurisprudential innovation — and its most institutionally consequential one.

A. PIL as democratisation — governance vacuums filled Locus standi dissolved: S.P. Gupta v. UoI (1981): any public-spirited citizen can approach SC on behalf of those unable to; constitutional voice given to prisoners, bonded labourers, pavement dwellers who could access neither lawyers nor courtrooms.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UoI (1984): SC ordered release of bonded labourers in Faridabad quarries; executive had not enforced the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 for eight years — PIL filled an eight-year executive vacuum.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): SC framed binding workplace sexual harassment guidelines after Bhanwari Devi's rape went unpunished; Parliament legislated POSH Act only 16 years later in 2013 — PIL bridged a legislative gap Parliament refused to close.

MC Mehta v. UoI (1986–ongoing): closed 292 polluting Delhi industries; mandated CNG public transport; established "polluter pays" and "precautionary principle" as Indian environmental law — filling a legislative vacuum Parliament had not addressed.

NALSA v. UoI (2014): SC recognised transgender persons as third gender, directing welfare measures — a rights-creation exercise Parliament had not attempted; each intervention shares one feature: documented governance failure where executive was absent and Parliament was silent.

The postcard that restructured Indian justice should not become the letterhead of the judicial government.

PIL as judicial overreach:

Investigative supervision: Vineet Narain v. UoI (1997) — SC supervised Jain Hawala CBI investigation, issuing directions on how executive should prosecute — converting rights-adjudicator into investigative supervisor; no constitutional competence for this function under separation of powers.

Private body governance: BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) — SC appointed Lodha Committee to restructure BCCI, a private sporting body with no fundamental rights nexus; supervised implementation through contempt jurisdiction — exercising governance where no constitutional warrant existed.

Policy prescription: MC Mehta (Taj Trapezium, 1996) — SC directed closure of industries within 10,500 sq km around Taj Mahal using criteria developed by court-appointed committee, not Ministry of Environment: the court made industrial policy for an entire region, substituting judicial for executive judgment on a technical governance question.

Self-correction acknowledged but incomplete: State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) — SC acknowledged PIL had become "a weapon for personal vendetta, political gain and publicity"; laid down screening guidelines; Arun Kumar Agrawal v. UoI (2013) dismissed cricket PIL as outside the public law domain: judicial recognition of overreach without structural reversal.

Problems created by the PIL trend

Judicial pendency compounded: SC carries 92,000+ pending cases (NJDG 2025) Executive accountability displaced: that judicial supervision without democratic accountability produces compliance theatre, not institutional change.

Separation of powers structurally eroded: create a parallel unelected governance layer with contempt jurisdiction as its enforcement tool and no democratic accountability for its policy choices.

PIL weaponised against its own purpose: Political actors harass opponents through judicial processes; PIL's low-threshold admission has made it a litigation weapon for the privileged against the very marginalised communities it was designed to protect.

Judicial credibility at risk: the authority gap between judicial direction and executive compliance produces a credibility deficit that undermines PIL's legitimate uses alongside its illegitimate ones.

The future of PIL lies not in abandonment, but in restoration: rights protection for the powerless, restraint in governance, and strict filtering of publicity or political litigation.