• Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979): The initial documented case of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979), which addressed the brutal conditions in prisons and the plight of under-trial prisoners, resulting in the release of over 40,000 such individuals.

• The right to a swift trial was recognized as a fundamental right that had been denied to these under-trials. 
• S.P. Gupta vs Union of India: Justice P. N. Bhagawati marked the beginning of a new phase in the PIL movement with the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India. 
• The court determined that “any member of the public or social action group acting in good faith” has the right to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under Article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) to seek redress for violations of the legal or constitutional rights of individuals unable to approach the court due to social, economic, or other disabilities.
• Following this ruling, PIL became an effective tool for enforcing “public duties” when executive actions or misconduct caused harm to the public. Consequently, any citizen of India or social action group can now petition the country’s highest court for legal remedies in situations affecting the general public or specific groups.
• Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay vs Devkala Consultancy Service: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “In an appropriate case, where the petitioner may have approached a court for personal redress or grievance, the court can, in the interest of justice, deem it necessary to investigate the situation concerning the subject of litigation based on public interest.” 
• M.C Mehta vs Union of India: This PIL was initiated to curtail further pollution of the Ganga river. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, despite not being a riparian owner, has the right to approach the court for implementing statutory provisions because they are concerned with safeguarding the lives of those who depend on the Ganga’s water.
• Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case acknowledged sexual harassment as a breach of fundamental constitutional rights under Article 14, Article 15, and Article 21. The decision also led to the establishment of guidelines which culminated in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Concerns related to PIL in India

Recently, PILs have been misused as instruments for gaining publicity. Individuals sometimes file frivolous petitions, leading to the court’s time being squandered. Additionally, such petitions have been employed with political motives, further straining the judiciary. Even if a petition is ultimately rejected, the courts invest significant time and resources before dismissing them. 

Currently, only judges possess the authority to reject a petition. The Registry of the Supreme Court or High Courts merely verifies that the procedural requirements for filing a petition are met, allowing petitions into the court regardless of their merit. 

The following are concerns about the misuse of PILs. 

• Frivolous PILs: It has been observed on many occasions that frivolous PILs are being filed. Recently, the SC dismissed a frivolous PIL which wanted all the citizens to follow a particular sect of Hinduism – ‘Parmatma’. 
• Misuse of PILs for personal or political gain: PILs have been used by individuals or organisations to further their own personal or political agendas, rather than for the public interest. Some PILs have been filed with the intention of settling personal scores or gaining publicity, which dilutes the effectiveness of this legal tool. Recently, the SC dismissed the PIL which sought to make the Sanskrit language as the national language of India.
• Overburdening the judiciary: PILs have led to an increase in the workload of the judiciary, as they often require a significant amount of time and resources to adjudicate. This can result in delays in other cases and a backlog of cases in the courts.
• Lack of accountability: There is a lack of accountability for those who file frivolous PILs. While the judiciary can dismiss PILs that do not have merit, there are no legal provisions for penalising those who file such PILs.
• Conflict with the principle of separation of powers: PILs can sometimes result in the judiciary overstepping its boundaries and making decisions that should be left to the elected representatives of the people. This can result in a conflict with the principle of separation of powers and undermine the functioning of democracy.

It is crucial to guarantee that PILs are filed solely in legitimate cases of public interest and are not exploited for personal or political advantage. The judiciary can also take steps to screen out frivolous PILs and impose penalties on those who file such PILs. Additionally, there needs to be a balance between the use of PILs and the functioning of other institutions in a democracy. While PILs can be an effective tool for citizens to seek justice and accountability, it is important to ensure that they are not misused or abused in any way.