Should PIL Jurisdiction Be Reconsidered? Misuse, Judicial Overreach & Reforms

1 May 2026

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerged in the 1970s to relax the doctrine of locus standi, enabling access to justice for marginalized groups. It transformed the judiciary into a proactive protector of fundamental rights.

Best Online Coaching for UPSC

Context of PIL

Definition of Locus Standi: Historically, the legal system followed the concept of “Locus Standi” (Right to Stand), where only an individual directly affected by an action could approach the court for relief.
Evolution in India: In the 1970s, Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer diluted this concept.
- They recognized that many poor and marginalized people in India lacked the knowledge or resources to approach the courts directly.
Shift to Public Interest: The judiciary allowed individuals or groups (like NGOs and social workers) not directly involved in a case to file petitions in the interest of the general public.
Foundational Example: The case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary Bihar (1979) is a key example, where a lawyer filed a petition for thousands of prisoners who remained in jail longer than their maximum possible sentences because their trials hadn’t even started.

Issues with PIL: Misuse and Judicial Overreach

Frivolous and publicity-driven petitions: PILs are often filed for personal or political agendas (“agenda-driven litigation”).
Judicial overreach in policy domains: Courts sometimes intervene in complex, polycentric disputes involving multiple stakeholders, where institutional capacity is limited.
“Ambush PILs”: Poorly drafted petitions intentionally filed to influence judicial outcomes negatively.
Implementation deficit: Courts issue directions but lack mechanisms to ensure effective enforcement.

Arguments Against Diluting PIL Jurisdiction

Despite misuse, socio-economic inequalities persist. Many citizens still lack resources or awareness to approach courts, making PIL indispensable for protecting rights and ensuring state accountability.

Click to Explore UPSC Offline Coaching

Way Forward

The source highlights that while PIL was intended for the marginalized, it is now often misused for publicity, political agendas, or “Ambush PILs” (poorly drafted petitions meant to be rejected to block future litigation). To address these issues, the following conclusions are drawn:

Policy vs. Law: PILs should be used to ensure the government follows existing laws or to challenge executive actions, but they should not be used to force the judiciary to create new policies (such as implementing a Uniform Civil Code).
Principle of Compulsion: PILs should ideally be restricted to cases where the directly affected person is under a “compulsion” that prevents them from approaching the court themselves, such as in Habeas Corpus cases (e.g., kidnapping or illegal detention).
Judicial Vigilance: The judiciary must remain alert to agenda-driven litigation and continue to impose costs or fines on those who file petitions purely for headlines rather than genuine public interest.