Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary ?
Approach · directive: “explain”
What it asks · Explain why PIL grew in India, then judge whether it has made the Supreme Court the world's most powerful court — with arguments on both sides.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India
- Has PIL made the Supreme Court the world's most powerful judiciary? Arguments for and against, with a clear position
Open with · Pioneered in the late 1970s and 1980s by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer, PIL relaxed locus standi so that anyone could approach the court for those unable to.
Cover
- Reasons: post-Emergency effort to regain legitimacy; executive inaction; poverty and illiteracy of victims; letters treated as petitions.
- Expanded Article 21: environment (M.C. Mehta), bonded labour (Bandhua Mukti Morcha), undertrials (Hussainara Khatoon), workplace harassment (Vishaka).
- Tools: Article 142 'complete justice', continuing mandamus, court-appointed committees, e.g., in the T.N. Godavarman forest case.
- Case for 'most powerful': it can strike down constitutional amendments (basic structure), as in the NJAC case (2015) — few courts can.
- Counterview: overreach into policy, separation-of-powers concerns, publicity-driven PILs, heavy pendency, weak capacity to enforce.
- Comparison: the US Supreme Court and Germany's Constitutional Court are powerful too, but with narrower access; India's court is uniquely accessible.
Close with · PIL has made the Supreme Court exceptionally powerful and accessible; its legitimacy depends on self-restraint and a steady focus on the voiceless.
Add value (verified)
- Article 142 gives the Supreme Court a power few courts have — to make any order needed for complete justice. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 142(1) — Legislative Department ↗“or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 335 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Public interest litigation grew in the late 1970s and 1980s when Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer relaxed locus standi so that any public-spirited person could move the court under Articles 32 and 226 on behalf of those who could not.
Why PIL grew
- Post-Emergency legitimacy: after ADM Jabalpur (1976), the Court sought to reclaim its role as guardian of rights.
- Access: poverty, illiteracy and distance kept victims away, so the Court accepted letters as petitions and appointed commissions to find facts.
- Executive and legislative inaction: on bonded labour (Bandhua Mukti Morcha), undertrials (Hussainara Khatoon), pollution (M.C. Mehta) and workplace harassment (Vishaka), the Court filled the gap.
- An expansive Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi (1978) turned life and liberty into a charter for dignity, environment and livelihood.
- Tools of enforcement: Article 142 'complete justice', continuing mandamus and monitoring committees, as in the T.N. Godavarman forest case.
- Civil society and media used PIL as a low-cost route to policy change.
The 'most powerful judiciary' claim
- For: the Court can strike down constitutional amendments under the basic structure doctrine — as in the NJAC case (2015) — appoints judges through the collegium, and issues detailed directions on air quality, forests and police reform; few courts combine such reach with such easy access.
- Against: power on paper is not power in effect — orders on pollution, encroachment and prison conditions are routinely unimplemented; pendency is heavy; the Court has neither purse nor sword and depends on executive compliance.
- Comparison: the US Supreme Court and Germany's Constitutional Court also review legislation but with narrower standing and fewer policy interventions; India's Court is distinctive for accessibility and breadth, not enforcement capacity.
- Concerns: publicity-driven and frivolous PILs, overreach into policy, and inconsistency between benches have invited criticism and self-imposed limits.
PIL has made the Supreme Court exceptionally accessible and expansive — arguably the most wide-ranging constitutional court — but its power rests on legitimacy and self-restraint rather than force, and its promise depends on keeping the voiceless at the centre.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.