Judicial activism and the rise of PIL

Detail

1. Meaning of judicial activism

• Judicial activism means that courts use their power actively to protect rights and to make the government answer for its actions. They do more than settle the disputes that affected people bring to them.
• Public interest litigation (PIL) is a case filed for a public cause rather than for a private benefit. It is also called social action litigation, and it is the main tool of judicial activism.
• It can be filed in two courts:
• Article 32: in the Supreme Court. Article 32 is the right to go to the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights, and it is itself a Fundamental Right.

• Article 226: in a High Court. A High Court can issue writs for Fundamental Rights and also "for any other purpose", so its power here is wider.

• The Supreme Court can be approached in two ways: by a formal writ petition, or by a letter to the Chief Justice of India that raises a question of public importance [2].

2. Origins after the Emergency

• Why it grew:
• During the Emergency (1975–77) the Court's reputation suffered.
• After 1977 it rebuilt public trust by turning towards the poor and voiceless.

• Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer led this change.

• Locus standi is the right to bring a case to court.

• Old rule: only the person who was actually harmed could sue.

• From about 1979: the Court allowed public-spirited people, groups and lawyers to sue for those who could not come to court themselves because of poverty, illiteracy or prison.

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), also called the First Judges case:

• Any member of the public acting bona fide (in good faith) may go to court under Article 32 or Article 226 for people who cannot do so themselves.

• The same case also warned against busybodies, meaning outsiders who interfere for their own reasons.

• New techniques, because a PIL is not an ordinary two-sided contest:

• Fact-finding commissions: the court sends officers or experts to inquire on the spot.
• Amicus curiae ("friend of the court"): a lawyer the court appoints to help it. The lawyer does not represent either side.
• Court-appointed committees and continuing monitoring orders, where the court keeps the case open and checks that the government obeys its orders.

3. Early landmark PILs

Case	Year	Facts	Principle / outcome
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar	1979	An advocate filed a petition based on newspaper reports. Undertrials (people in jail who have not yet been tried) in Bihar had been held longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crime.	Speedy trial was held to be part of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Thousands of undertrials were freed.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration	1978; 1980	1978: the Court examined bar fetters (iron chains on prisoners) and solitary confinement. 1980: a Tihar Jail prisoner sent a scribbled note about torture to Justice Krishna Iyer, and the note was turned into a petition.	Prisoners keep their Fundamental Rights. The case became the base of prisoners' rights law.
Khatri v. State of Bihar	1980–81	Bhagalpur blindings: police blinded undertrial prisoners with acid (NCERT: "blinding of jail inmates").	State custody brought under Article 21. The court used its power to examine the State's wrongs.
PUDR v. Union of India	1982	Workers building the Asiad (Asian Games, 1982) projects were paid less than the minimum wage.	Paying below the minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23. Child labour on construction sites violates Article 24. This links to NCERT's right against exploitation.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India	1984	Bonded labour (work done to pay off a debt, with no freedom to leave) in Haryana's stone quarries.	Bhagwati held that the poor need a non-adversarial approach: the court works with all parties to find the truth instead of running a contest between two sides.

4. Epistolary jurisdiction

• Epistolary jurisdiction means the court treats a letter or postcard as a writ petition.
• The Supreme Court has treated letters, telegrams, postcards and news reports as writ petitions on many occasions [2].
• Current position: the practice continues but is screened. Letters are sorted under the Supreme Court's PIL guidelines on letter-petitions (1988, later revised). Only listed categories are accepted:
• bonded labour
• neglected children
• complaints from jails
• police harassment
• atrocities on women, SCs and STs

• environmental pollution

• (NCERT: the Court later abandoned the practice of treating letters as petitions.)

• Checks before a court accepts a PIL:
• The court should verify the petitioner's credentials.
• It should be satisfied, on a first look, that the petition's contents are correct.

• It should be satisfied that a substantial public interest is involved [3].

• What a PIL petition must contain: the relief sought, the grounds, and the petitioner's credentials. It must also include a declaration that the petitioner has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the matter [3].

5. Suo motu cognizance

• Suo motu cognizance means a court takes up a matter on its own, often after reading a news report or a letter. No petition needs to be filed.
• Prisons: In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, W.P. (C) No. 406 of 2013, was registered as a public interest writ petition. Under it, High Powered Committees were directed to deal with prison conditions [5].
• Migrant workers (2020): Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 6 of 2020 dealt with migrant workers stranded during the COVID-19 lockdown. Results [4]:
• The NHRC was allowed to join the case on 5 June 2020.

• The Court later directed the Centre to build a portal to register unorganised and migrant workers.

• COVID supplies (2021): the Court took suo motu notice of the supply of oxygen, medicines and essential services during the second wave.

• RG Kar hospital case (2024): Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) No. 2 of 2024 followed the August 2024 crime at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, and the later vandalism and attacks on doctors. It was listed in the Supreme Court on 22 August 2024 [6].

6. Impact of PIL

• NCERT credits PIL with:
• Democratising access to courts: groups, not only individuals, can now seek justice.
• Executive accountability: the government is made to explain its actions and to act.

• Making rights real for the poor: prisoners, bonded labourers and workers.

• Spread abroad: the PIL model spread to South Asia and Africa. South Africa's Constitution (1996) lets anyone acting in the public interest approach the courts (NCERT box).

• Wider Article 21: PIL helped read new rights into Article 21, such as speedy trial, dignity in custody and livelihood.
• NCERT's "You Are the Judge" exercise asks students to weigh slum removal against the right to life.
• It links to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), which held that the right to livelihood is part of Article 21.

7. Misuse and curbs

• Misuse:
• NCERT warns of a "private interest litigation" bubble, where a private dispute is dressed up as a public cause.

• Some petitions are filed for publicity, or as political or business weapons.

• Overreach debate:

• Courts sometimes order things that are the job of the executive, such as bans on bandhs or running schemes. NCERT's bandhs cartoon illustrates this.

• Critics say this blurs the separation of powers, meaning the division of work between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

• Judicial curbs:

• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992): busybodies and meddlesome outsiders have no locus standi in a PIL.
• State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): laid down guidelines for PILs and allowed exemplary costs (heavy fines) on frivolous petitions. The checks on credentials, correctness and public interest in §4 come from this line of cases [3].

Prelims Hooks

• PIL can be filed under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts). Trap: Article 136 (special leave to appeal) is not the PIL route.
• Hussainara Khatoon (1979): speedy trial is part of Article 21. It is often called the first reported PIL.
• PUDR (1982), Asiad workers: paying below the minimum wage is "forced labour" under Article 23.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984): bonded labour in Haryana's stone quarries. The poor need a "non-adversarial" approach (Bhagwati).
• Sunil Batra (1980): a prisoner's note to Justice Krishna Iyer was turned into a petition, which is an example of epistolary jurisdiction.
• S.P. Gupta (1981): relaxed locus standi; it is also the First Judges case.
• Amicus curiae assists the court and does not represent either party.
• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992): busybodies barred. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): PIL guidelines and costs.
• Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 6 of 2020: migrant workers during the lockdown. The NHRC was allowed to intervene [4].
• Khatri case: the Bhagalpur blindings of undertrial prisoners (1980–81).

Mains Points

• For PIL: it filled the gap between rights on paper and rights in practice. Relaxed locus standi, letter-petitions and amicus curiae brought undertrials, bonded labourers and migrant workers into court, and turned Article 21 into a living guarantee (Hussainara 1979; migrant workers 2020).
• Against PIL (overreach):
• Orders on policy, bandhs and administration blur the separation of powers.
• Courts also lack the expertise and the tools to run long monitoring orders, such as the prisons case (W.P. (C) 406/2013) [5].

• The balance lies in judicial restraint: the court nudges the executive to act, but does not replace it.

• Misuse versus access: "private interest litigation" clogs dockets that already have huge backlogs. Screening petitioners' credentials, demanding a declaration of no personal interest [3], and imposing exemplary costs (Balwant Singh Chaufal, 2010) can filter abuse without closing the door on the poor.

• Reform ideas:
• Transparent, published criteria for admitting suo motu matters and letter-petitions.
• Time limits on continuing monitoring orders.
• Stronger legal aid, so the poor need PIL "proxies" less often.