Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India: A Uniquely Indian Legal Tool Explained

Public Interest Litigation, almost always called simply PIL, is one of the features of Indian law that most surprises foreign comparative lawyers, because it lets a court act on a wrong suffered by people who are not themselves before the court, filed by someone with no personal stake in the outcome.

Where it came from

PIL has no separate statutory basis. It developed through Supreme Court case law in the late 1970s and 1980s, led by judges like P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, who relaxed the traditional rule of “locus standi” (that only a person directly affected can sue) to let any public-spirited citizen or organisation approach the court on behalf of those who cannot approach it themselves, typically the poor, undertrial prisoners, bonded labourers, or environmental victims.

How it is filed

A PIL can be filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in a High Court under Article 226, and in practice is sometimes triggered by nothing more formal than a letter to a judge, which the court then treats as a writ petition (an “epistolary jurisdiction” with no real equivalent in most adversarial common law systems). Courts have also broadened remedies available in PIL proceedings, including continuing mandamus (ongoing judicial supervision of a government agency’s compliance over months or years) rather than a single, final order.

What it has been used for

Landmark PILs shaped Indian law on undertrial prisoners’ rights (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979), sexual harassment at the workplace before any statute existed (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997, which the Supreme Court used to lay down binding guidelines in the absence of legislation), and environmental protection (Vellore Citizens, discussed in Lexfolio’s guide on Indian environmental law).

The criticism it draws

PIL is also criticised, including by Indian judges themselves, for being misused for publicity, private grievances dressed up as public causes, and for drawing courts into policy-making territory that arguably belongs to the executive and legislature, a separation-of-powers tension that comparative constitutional law courses studying judicial activism frequently examine using India as the primary case study.

Lexfolio’s guide to citing Indian case law covers how to reference these landmark PIL judgments correctly.