PILs are increasingly used in political disputes. Critically analyse how courts can stop this from diluting the purpose of public interest litigation.

Courts relaxed the rule on who may file a case (locus standi) under Articles 32 and 226 so that people who cannot reach a court could still get justice. Today, PILs are also used to settle political scores. A recent example is a Madras High Court PIL in which a businessman asks for an MHA probe into the nationality of a Cockroach Janta Party leader [1]. Courts have to filter out bad motives without turning away real public questions.

How political PILs dilute the purpose

• Cheap to file, costly to defend: the petitioner alleges that Aadhaar, a passport and a voter ID were obtained by fraud. He claims no personal injury [1]. Under Section 16, Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the accused person must prove that he is not a foreigner [2].
• Damage to reputation: the public often reads a court notice as a verdict, even though it is not.
• Docket congestion: these cases take up the time that PILs for the voiceless need.

Why courts cannot simply refuse them

• Some political PILs raise real constitutional questions. A non-citizen on the electoral roll violates Article 326, and Aadhaar shows only who a person is, not whether they are a citizen [3].
• Refusing them all would bring back the strict standing rules that S.P. Gupta (1981) removed.

Tools available to courts

• Screening at admission: State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) told courts to check the petitioner's credentials, the prima facie truth of the petition and whether there is an oblique motive. It also told them to impose costs on frivolous petitions [4].
• Codified rules: High Courts have framed PIL rules that require petitioners to disclose who they are and what interest they have [5].
• Refer the question instead of deciding it: factual disputes such as nationality can go to the statutory forums. These are Foreigners Tribunals or the Section 13 Citizenship Act certificate process [6], with fixed time limits.
• Due process: courts should hear the accused, pass reasoned and narrow orders, and avoid open-ended probes.

Limits of these tools

• Judging motive is subjective, and different Benches apply the filters differently.
• Heavy costs may scare off genuine petitioners who have little money.
• A reverse burden of proof can still be used to harass people even after a case is referred.

To protect PIL, courts should ask whether the public interest is real, not who filed the case. Screening at admission, codified rules, referral to statutory forums and fair hearings together can keep PIL a tool for justice under Article 39A.