Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a revolutionary legal concept and judicial tool, not defined in any Indian statute, that allows any public-spirited citizen or organization to seek legal remedy for a matter of general public importance. It is a form of litigation focused on larger societal issues, such as environmental protection, human rights, and the welfare of marginalized groups.
The concept emerged in India in the 1980s, pioneered by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati. It was created to solve the problem of the strict rule of locus standi, which previously allowed only a person whose rights were directly infringed to approach the court. The first major case was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), which exposed the plight of undertrial prisoners and led to the release of over 40,000 prisoners, establishing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
A PIL works by relaxing the rule of locus standi, allowing a third party to litigate on behalf of the disadvantaged. It can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judiciary has adopted exceptional procedural flexibility, with Justice Bhagwati accepting even letters or postcards as petitions, a practice known as 'Epistolary Jurisdiction'.
PIL is a chief instrument of judicial activism and is rooted in the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). The landmark judgment S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) formally recognized this relaxed standing. A key example is Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, which led to the Vishaka Guidelines and eventually the enactment of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
While the core mechanism remains, the Supreme Court has recently noted a change in its application, expressing strong disapproval of its misuse for "private interest litigation," "publicity interest litigation," "paisa interest litigation," and "political interest litigation". The court has emphasized that it will only entertain "real and genuine PILs" and has imposed fines on frivolous petitions to preserve the integrity of the tool.