A Double-Edged Sword

Public Interest Litigation has played a crucial role in judicial activism in India by expanding access to justice, but courts have increasingly cautioned against its misuse for publicity, private interests, and frivolous claims

- RAAVI BIRBAL

One of the key concepts known to have accelerated judicial activism in India is public interest litigation (PIL). PIL is litigation undertaken to secure public interest. Over the years, while courts have duly entertained genuine PILs, over the last few decades, they have also rightly pointed out the misuse of the same. At times, people are casually advised to file PILs—sometimes for ulterior motives, indirect gains, or even as a publicity stunt. One must carefully scrutinise the legal position rather than wasting time, as this could, in certain genuine cases, result in delays in approaching the correct legal remedy.

In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors., 2001, the Supreme Court observed that public interest litigation is tending to become publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation, with a tendency to be counterproductive. The Court stated that PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially meant to protect the basic human rights of the weak and disadvantaged and was a procedure that allowed a public-spirited person to file a petition on behalf of those who, due to poverty, helplessness, or economic and social disabilities, could not approach the Court for relief. In recent times, however, there have been increasing instances of PIL abuse. The Court, therefore, emphasised the need to re-establish the parameters within which PILs can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the Court.