“Public interest is promoted by a spacious construction of locus standi in our socio economic circumstances”– this was opined by Justice Krishna Iyer in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v Abdul Thai, 1976[1]. The statement served the purpose of acknowledging the intrinsic disparities, both social and economic, in the society. Additionally, provided a mechanism to stand against these circumstances- by the relaxation of locus standi. In laymen terms, public interest litigation is the remedy available to all the citizens of India, social groups or organizations to protect or enforce the public interest of a community or marginalized group.

The first noted case of its utilisation was Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, 1979 [2]where newspaper reports of the inhumane conditions of the prison were treated as a writ petition. Another aspect of PIL is its mechanism, i.e., how it is brought before the court. PILs’ are filed as writ petitions under Article 32 for the Supreme Court and Article 226 for High Courts. PIL is best understood as a means of utilizing the provisions contained within Articles 32 and 226 to ensure that constitutional remedies become available to persons who have been systematically excluded from the legal system, by relaxing procedure and standing[3].

PILs started as a measure to aid the weaker sections of society, today it has transformed into something that is used as a cheaper way of filing a case. Flooding the courts with irresponsible PILs and forgetting the genuine ones in the process. [4]

How has it helped the Supreme Court in protecting fundamental rights in India?

  1. Extending the scope of Article 21: There is no particular case which has helped this cause. These developments have happened gradually, evolving into laws that we look upon today[5]. For instance-
  2. Right to speedy trial – Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
  3. Right to free legal aid –M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [6]
  4. Right to livelihood – Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation[7]
  5. Right to a clean environment – M. C. Mehta v. Union of India[8]  
  6. Right to privacy – K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [9]
  7. Right to live with dignity – Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi[10].

These rights along with others have helped the citizens to get a better understanding of their rights enshrined in the constitution and enforcing them. All these can be attributed to the effects of the implementation of PILs.

  1. Holding the government accountable: Writ petitions, filed under Article 32 and 226, are of 5 kinds. Among these writs- writ of mandamus and quo-warranto directly provide remedy against illegal and unconstitutional acts of public servants and government institutions. To elucidate,
  2. Mandamus: Translates to “we command.” It compels a public official or lower court to perform their mandatory legal or public duty. This creates a situation where the government body has to work and comply the legal rules without being arbitrary.
  3. Quo-warranto: Translates to “by what authority.” Questions the legality of a person’s claim to a public office to prevent illegal usurpation. Decisions for the people should be made by the authorities they have given their consent to, thus, this writ imposing the same helps the people to hold the government accountable.
  1. Protection of marginalised groups: The onus of PIL has been to provide legal access to groups that cannot do it themselves, due to any issue, being social or economic. It could be filed by any person on behalf of the affected party or parties in public interest. Thus, a relaxed locus standi. This has ultimately helped the marginalised communities by targeting issues like- bonded labour, child labour, custodial violence, prison conditions, environmental degradation, and exploitation of workers.

In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra[11]– The Supreme Court safeguarded the rights of women prisoners and children in custody.

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [12]– The Supreme Court enforced labour rights and interpreted Fundamental Rights in favour of workers.

  1. Developing Judicial Remedies:
  2. Epistolary Jurisdiction: In these cases, PILs have been petitioned by the judiciary itself on account of letters and postcards received by them. The Supreme Court or High Courts take suo-moto action in these cases.
  3. Continuing Mandamus: This remedy is availed the court when a single order cannot help in relieving the situation. Thus, the court monitors the situation with the help of records and reports and orders the directions as needed. This is another crucial innovation of PIL.

Conclusion:

Public Interest Litigation has transformed the Supreme Court and High Courts from a passive adjudicator to an active protector of Fundamental Rights. It remains one of the most significant judicial innovations for advancing social justice and constitutional governance in India.

This article has been researched and prepared by Deeksha Rao, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.

[1] 1976 (3) SCC 832

[2] 1980 (1) SCC 98

[3] Sayyed Janhabaz Ali, “Public interest litigation and constitutional rights” 12(2) International Journal of Law 118 (2026

[4] Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Bohra, “Public Interest Litigation: Access To Justice”, available at: Manupatra Roundup PDF (last visited June 27, 2026).

[5] Zachary Holladay, “Public Interest Litigations in India as a Paradigm for Developing Nations” 19(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies555 (2012)

[6] 1978 (3) SCC 544   

[7] 1985 (3) SCC 545 

[8] 1988 3 SCC 471

[9] 2019 (1) SCC 1

[10] 1981 (1) SCC 608   

[11] 1983 (2) SCC 96

[12] (1982) 3 SCC 235