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.
It asks 2 things — 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 · Public interest litigation took shape around 1979, when the Supreme Court heard Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar on behalf of undertrials; under Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer the Court relaxed locus standi so anyone could move the court for those who could not.
Cover
- Access: Bhagwati in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) — the adversarial procedure would leave the poor's rights unenforced; letters treated as petitions (Sunil Batra, 1980).
- Expanded Article 21 after Maneka Gandhi (1978): clean air, unpolluted water, decent living; executive inaction on bonded labour, pollution (M.C. Mehta), harassment (Vishaka, 1997).
- Tools: Article 142 'complete justice', continuing mandamus, monitoring committees (T.N. Godavarman); post-Emergency search for legitimacy.
- Case for 'most powerful': basic structure review of amendments (NJAC, 2015); electoral affidavits; uniquely wide access compared with the US and German courts.
- Counterview: overburdened courts, blurred separation of powers, unimplemented orders, 'private interest litigation'.
- Way forward: Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) curbs on frivolous PILs; time-bound compliance monitoring.
Close with · PIL's legitimacy lies with those who cannot reach the court; exercised with restraint, Article 142's promise of 'complete justice' keeps the Court strong through public trust.
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”
- Maneka Gandhi (1978): procedure under Article 21 must be fair, not arbitrary — the basis of the expanded right to life.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Supreme Court — Indian Kanoon ↗“It must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”
- Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to curb frivolous PILs, including exemplary costs.State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) — UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform (LEAP) case summary ↗“petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 374words · Minimalist IAS
Public interest litigation (PIL) took shape around 1979, when the Supreme Court heard Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar, filed on behalf of undertrials. Under Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer the Court relaxed locus standi (the right to sue) so that anyone could move the court for those who could not.
Reasons for the growth of public interest litigation
- Access for the voiceless: for the poor, Justice Bhagwati warned in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), a blindly adversarial procedure would leave fundamental rights unenforced.
- Letters as petitions: in Sunil Batra (1980) a Tihar inmate's note to Justice Krishna Iyer on prison torture became a petition.
- Expansive Article 21: after Maneka Gandhi (1978) required procedure to be 'right and just and fair', clean air, unpolluted water and decent living became rights.
- Executive inaction: the Court filled gaps on bonded labour, pollution (M.C. Mehta) and workplace sexual harassment (Vishaka guidelines, 1997).
- Post-Emergency legitimacy: the Court sought to regain trust as guardian of rights.
- Remedial tools: Article 142's 'complete justice', continuing mandamus and monitoring committees, as in the T.N. Godavarman forest case.
- 1979: Hussainara Khatoon
- 1980: Sunil Batra
- 1984: Bandhua Mukti Morcha
- 1997: Vishaka guidelines
- 2010: Balwant Singh Chaufal curbs
Is it the world's most powerful judiciary?
- Case for: it can strike down constitutional amendments under the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati), as with the NJAC (2015), and has made candidates disclose assets and education.
- Unique access: the US and German constitutional courts also review laws, but with narrower access; India's Court is uniquely open.
- Case against: PILs have overburdened courts and blurred the separation of powers; orders on pollution or prisons often go unimplemented, as the Court commands neither funds nor force.
- Misuse: some petitions become 'private interest litigation', filed for publicity.
- Verdict: it is arguably the most accessible, wide-ranging constitutional court, but power resting on executive compliance is reach, not supremacy.
Way forward
- Filter PILs: apply Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): encourage bona fide PILs and impose exemplary costs on petitions by busybodies.
- Ensure compliance: time-bound monitoring of orders; policy left to the executive unless rights are at stake.
PIL's legitimacy lies with those who cannot reach the court; exercised with restraint, Article 142's promise of 'complete justice' keeps the Court strong through public trust, not force.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
