The Supreme Court established the following principles concerning Public Interest Litigation (PIL): 

• The Court can receive petitions from any concerned individual regarding the well-being of disadvantaged groups under its powers granted by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the Fundamental Rights of such disadvantaged people and direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises. 
• When matters of public significance and the protection of fundamental rights for a large segment of the population in relation to the constitutional responsibilities of the State are raised, the court may consider a letter or telegram as a PIL. 
• If injustices are inflicted upon a significant number of individuals, the court will readily invoke Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, along with International Human Rights treaties that ensure a fair and just trial. 
• The usual rule of locus standi is loosened to allow the court to address grievances on behalf of the poor, marginalized, illiterate, and disabled individuals who cannot obtain justice due to violations of their constitutional or legal rights. 
• When the Court is initially convinced that a constitutional right of a disadvantaged group has been violated, it may not permit the Government to question the petition’s maintainability. 
• Disputes between two opposing parties purely within private law cannot be addressed as a PIL. 
• In certain exceptional cases, the Court may appoint a Commission or other entities to investigate allegations and ascertain facts. It may also instruct the management of a public institution under the Commission’s oversight. 
• The Court typically refrains from entering matters of policy-making. It will also exercise extreme caution to avoid overstepping its jurisdiction while aiming to protect people’s rights from infringement. 

Against Whom Can a PIL Be Filed Under Indian Law?

A Public Interest Litigation can target a State or Central Government, Municipal Authorities, but not a private entity. The term “State” aligns with the definition in Article 12 of the Constitution. The authorities under Article 12 include: 

• The Government of India and Parliament 
• The Government and Legislature of each State 
• All local authorities Other authorities operating within India’s territory or under the Government of India. 

In the case of Electricity Board, Rajasthan vs Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court determined that other authorities encompass any bodies established by the Constitution of India or a statute, endowed with powers by the Constitution or law.

Inclusion of Private Parties in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

A private party may be included as a respondent in the PIL, provided the relevant state authority is also involved. 

• For example- If there is a Private factory causing pollution in Delhi, people living nearby or any other person can file a PIL against the Government of Delhi, the Pollution Control Board, and the private factory. Nevertheless, a PIL cannot be filed solely against a private party.

Guidelines to Prevent Misuse of Public Interest Litigation

PILs have gained significant importance in legal administration. They should not devolve into ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Politics Interest Litigation’, ‘Private Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’, or ‘Middle-class Interest Litigation’ (MIL).

The Supreme Court noted in 2010 that: “PIL is not a remedy for all issues. Its primary purpose was to safeguard the fundamental rights of the vulnerable and disadvantaged, serving as a mechanism for public-spirited individuals to file petitions on behalf of those unable to seek relief due to poverty, helplessness, or social and economic disadvantages. Recently, there have been increasing instances of PIL misuse, hence there must be a reaffirmation of the parameters under which PIL can be utilized by petitioners and accepted by the court.” 

Consequently, the Supreme Court outlined these guidelines to prevent the misuse of PIL: 

• Genuine PILs: The court should support genuine and valid PILs while actively deterring petitions filed with ulterior motives by imposing significant costs or employing similar measures to limit frivolous cases.
• Rules by High Courts: Rather than each individual Judge creating their own methods for addressing PILs, it would be more effective for each High Court to establish specific rules that promote genuine PIL filings and dissuade those with ulterior motives.
• Credential of Petitioners: The Court should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining the PIL. 
• Correctness of Content of the Petition: The Court should be initially satisfied regarding the truthfulness of the petition’s contents before considering the PIL. 
• Substantial Public Interest: The Court should be thoroughly convinced that substantial public interest is at stake before processing the petition. It should ensure that petitions involving significant public interest and urgency receive priority over others. 
• Addressing genuine Public Harm: Before acknowledging a PIL, the Court must ensure that it targets the resolution of actual public harm and injury. It should also verify that there is no personal benefit, private agenda, or hidden motive behind filing the PIL.