Public Interest Litigation (PIL), introduced in the early 1980s by Chief Justice of India PN Bhagwati and Justice VR Krishna Iyer, has, over the last four decades, served the cause of lakhs of long-suffering poor and marginalised sections of the population, including thousands of undertrial prisoners in Indian jails who otherwise saw no light at the end of the tunnel.

Till the 1980s, the courts in India, the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the subordinate courts entertained petitions only from parties directly or indirectly affected by any action or event. The courts heard and adjudicated cases only under their original and appellate jurisdictions.

However, in the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India began hearing public-interest cases filed by even people who were not directly involved in the matter. It became the court's prerogative to decide whether a matter should be heard, not the locus standi of the petitioner.

Perhaps the first PIL was filed by G Vasantha Pai in the Madras High Court against the then Chief Justice, S Ramachandra Iyer, for forging his date of birth to avoid retirement at 60. He was actually 64 when the forged certificate showed the age as 60. Before the case came up for hearing, he resigned at the request of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, PB Gajendragadkar, as the case would have damaged the reputation of the judiciary.

Thereafter, in 1979, Supreme Court advocate Kapila Hingorani filed a PIL in the Supreme Court on the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar jails for years without trial. The Supreme Court bench, then headed by Chief Justice PN Bhagwati and comprising Justice ES Venkatramiah, held that undertrial prisoners should be provided free legal aid and that their trials should be fast-tracked.

The petition was filed under the name of a prisoner, Hussainara Khatoon, and was titled Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar. The SC then ordered the immediate release of more than 40,000 prisoners from the Bihar Jails. Subsequently, several other PILs were filed in the Supreme Court of India.

One of the important PIL cases in the Supreme Court at that time, which this reporter covered, concerned the brutal blinding of 32 young men belonging to the scheduled caste and extremely backward class by the Bhagalpur police. On December 2, 1980, this reporter produced two of the blinded victims, Saligram Saha and Baljit Singh, before a Supreme Court bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India, PN Bhagwati and Justice ES Venkatramiah.

The court expressed shock at the condition of the victims, pus was oozing out of the infected eyes, which were blinded by pouring acid and ordered that all the blinded victims be brought to Delhi at the expense of the Bihar government, given treatment at the Rajender Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Studies at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).

The SC order also reiterated that the directives given by the Supreme Court in the Sunil Batra case should be followed in its letter and spirit by the Jail authorities throughout India. According to those, the rights of prisoners should be written and displayed in every jail, a grievance box should be kept at an accessible place, free legal aid should be provided, and relatives should be allowed to visit the prisoner.

"We impress on the State that these directions have been given by the Supreme Court and they represent the law of the land. It must be carried out early so that the State may not be reminded by us again," the order added.

The concept of PIL is derived from Article 39A of the Constitution of India, which provides "Equal justice and free legal aid." The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation, schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

After the 1975-77 Emergency Era, the courts reached out to the public and, through PILs, enabled any member of the public or a non-governmental organisation to approach the courts to seek legal relief in matters of public interest.

Filing a PIL is not as cumbersome as filing a usual legal case. At times, the courts have been so forthcoming that even a letter or telegram sent to them by concerned citizens has been treated as a PIL.

PIL is a RULE OF LAW declared by courts of record. However, the individual or entity filing the petition has to prove to the court's satisfaction that the petition serves the public interest and is not a frivolous petition brought for pecuniary benefit or self-interest. In this context, the 38th Chief Justice of India, SH Kapadia, stated that substantial fines would be imposed on litigants who filed frivolous PILs. There have been several instances where litigants filing frivolous cases have been imposed heavy fines.

A bench consisting of Justices GS Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly clarified that it was necessary to erase the impression on some that the superior courts, by entertaining PIL petitions for the poor who could not seek protection of their rights, exceeded the unwritten boundaries of their jurisdiction. It was the duty of the judiciary to protect the rights of every citizen and ensure that all, rich or poor, lived with dignity.

In a rather sinister move on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, the Union government urged a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to abolish the PIL jurisdiction. The submission was made by the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, before the bench currently hearing a reference arising out of the Sabarimala review regarding the entry of menstruating women into the Ayyappa Temple.

Mehta made the submission before the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsan Uddin Amanullah, Arvind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.

Replying to Mehta, the CJI, Surya Kant, pointed out that the courts had become very cautious in entertaining PILs. "We have laid down parameters to test them ... Notices are issued when there is substance." Perhaps over the 2006 to 2026 period, the situation has evolved, and the court has become more cautious. "The point is this, on a general principle of PIL, we may not even hear you," CJI Kant added.