Public Interest Litigation has increasingly become a tool for private interest litigation. Critically examine the measures taken by the Supreme Court to curb its misuse.

Q. Public Interest Litigation has increasingly become a tool for private interest litigation. Critically examine the measures taken by the Supreme Court to curb its misuse. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Born of relaxed locus standi and epistolary jurisdiction in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982), PIL was designed for the voiceless. Its growing capture by personal, political and publicity interests has forced the Supreme Court to build safeguards — significant in design, but uneven in effect.

Measures taken by the Court - Guidelines in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): courts must verify the petitioner's credentials, satisfy themselves of the prima facie correctness of the contents, ensure genuine public injury, and High Courts must frame PIL rules to encourage bona fide petitions while discouraging those with oblique motives [1]. - Exemplary costs: under the PIL provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Court's inherent powers read with Article 142, costs are imposed on mala fide petitions [2]. In January 2026, a Bench led by the CJI warned of heavy costs in a plea to remove a historical figure's portraits from Parliament's Central Hall, permitting withdrawal instead. - Judicial restraint: refusal to enter matters within legislative or executive discretion — portraits in House premises fall to the Presiding Officer under Articles 105 and 194 — keeping courts out of contested political symbolism. - Registry-level scrutiny and preference for cases involving fundamental rights of disadvantaged groups.

Critical assessment - The Chaufal directions are advisory; High Court PIL rules remain uneven, so admission still turns on bench discretion. - Costs are sporadically imposed and rarely recovered, blunting deterrence. - Harsh cost warnings risk chilling genuine petitioners in environmental and rights litigation, diluting access to justice. - Frivolous petitions still consume judicial time amid high pendency, now publicly tracked through the National Judicial Data Grid after the Supreme Court's onboarding [3][4].

The Court has restored a measure of discipline without abandoning PIL's emancipatory core. The way forward lies in uniform High Court PIL rules, dedicated screening benches, graded and enforceable costs, and NJDG-based monitoring — so that PIL remains an instrument of Article 39A's promise of justice to the disadvantaged.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) — UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform — Supreme Court guidelines on verifying petitioner credentials and curbing PILs with oblique motives 2. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Supreme Court of India — PIL provisions and imposition of exemplary costs on frivolous petitions 3. PIB: e-Courts project completes full circle with Supreme Court onboarding the National Judicial Data Grid (2023) — transparency in monitoring judicial pendency 4. National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), eCourts — official pendency data across the Supreme Court, High Courts and district judiciary