Originating in the late 1970s through judicial interpretation led by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) altered traditional judicial procedures by relaxing the rigid doctrine of locus standi, allowing public-spirited citizens and organizations to petition constitutional courts on behalf of marginalized groups under Articles 32 and 226.

Reasons for the Growth of PIL in India

• Relaxation of Locus Standi: Permitted third parties to file petitions on behalf of disadvantaged citizens unable to access courts due to poverty, ignorance, or institutional detention (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 for undertrial prisoners; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, 1984 for bonded laborers).
• Expansive Interpretation of Fundamental Rights: Interpreting Article 21 broadly to encompass human dignity, the right to a healthy environment (M.C. Mehta cases), the right to food (PUCL v. UOI, 2001), and the right to privacy (Puttaswamy case).
• Response to Executive and Legislative Inaction: Where governance gaps existed, courts stepped in to frame binding guidelines, such as the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) on workplace sexual harassment and environmental orders on vehicular fuel standards.
• Procedural Simplification (Epistolary Jurisdiction): Converting simple letters, postcards, and newspaper reports into formal writ petitions reduced financial and procedural barriers for disadvantaged citizens.
• Role of Civil Society and Media: Non-governmental organizations, legal aid societies (under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987), and investigative journalism documented systemic human rights concerns for judicial examination.

Has the Supreme Court Emerged as the World’s Most Powerful Judiciary?

1. Arguments Supporting Immense Power

• Substantive Review of Constitutional Amendments: The Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) gives the Indian Court authority to review and invalidate constitutional amendments passed by Parliament, a power not possessed by the US Supreme Court or the UK judiciary.
• Direct Policy Administration (Continuing Mandamus): Courts frequently issue continuous directions, appoint monitoring committees, and supervise administrative actions in environmental and welfare administration.
• Plenary Inherent Powers under Article 142: Grants authority to pass any order necessary for “doing complete justice”, which has been used to resolve complex disputes and award restitution.
• Self-Selection in Judicial Appointments: The Collegium System, established through the Judges Cases and reaffirmed in the NJAC verdict (2015), gives the judiciary primacy in appointing its own members.

2. Limitations and Democratic Counterweights

• Lack of Direct Enforcement Machinery: The Court relies on the executive branch to execute and enforce its orders, depending on public legitimacy and constitutional trust.
• Risks of Judicial Overreach: Entering into specialized executive functions (such as pricing policies, urban planning, or administrative transfers) can invite criticism regarding the separation of powers.
• Growing Caseload and Pendency: Managing thousands of individual PILs alongside constitutional and appellate duties contributes to high judicial pendency.

Way Forward

• Enforce strict threshold filters to reject frivolous or politically motivated PILs.
• Establish specialized benches to handle complex technical public-interest litigations efficiently.

Through the PIL mechanism, the Indian Supreme Court has established an expansive constitutional role. Maintaining institutional balance requires pairing broad powers with judicial self-restraint to respect the separation of powers.