How to File a PIL in the Supreme Court: Public Interest Litigation Step by Step

Traditionally only a person whose own rights were affected could seek a remedy. The Supreme Court relaxed that rule in the early 1980s. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, it held that a member of the public acting bona fide may seek judicial redress for a legal wrong or injury caused to persons who, by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, cannot approach the court themselves. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, it treated a letter about bonded labourers working in stone quarries near Delhi as a writ petition, appointed commissioners to investigate conditions on the ground, and issued directions for their release and rehabilitation.

Public interest litigation has since been used to enforce rights in fields as varied as prison conditions, environmental protection, the rights of workers and children, and the accountability of public authorities. The essay on writ petitions places it within the Court's wider jurisdiction under Article 32.

As the jurisdiction grew, so did attempts to misuse it. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, the Court warned against petitions by busybodies and persons pursuing private or political ends in the name of public interest. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, dismissing a petition by a private individual seeking commutation of a death sentence imposed on someone else, it said that public interest litigation should not become 'publicity interest litigation', 'private interest litigation' or 'politics interest litigation', and that a petitioner must come "not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective."

In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, where a lawyer had used a public interest petition to put pressure on private parties for money, the Court upheld the dismissal of the petition with costs and observed that "Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection". In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, it gave directions to all courts: to encourage genuine public interest litigation and discourage petitions filed for extraneous considerations, to verify the credentials of the petitioner and the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining it, to be satisfied that substantial public interest is involved, and to impose exemplary costs where a petition is frivolous or filed with oblique motives.

Because public interest cases concern the rights of many people, the Court's procedure is less adversarial than in ordinary litigation. It may appoint an amicus curiae to assist it, commission experts or officials to report on facts, and issue directions to the Union and the States over a period, monitoring compliance through periodic reports. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, for instance, it kept a matter pending to supervise investigations, a technique often described as continuing mandamus.

The Court is, however, conscious of the limits of its role. It does not ordinarily direct the legislature to make a law, or substitute its own view for that of the executive on matters of policy, unless a fundamental right is infringed or the action is arbitrary or contrary to law. Prayers framed as specific, enforceable directions addressed to identified authorities are more likely to be granted than general requests to remedy a social problem.

A prayer such as 'direct the respondents to take all necessary steps to remedy the situation' gives the Court little to act on. Effective prayers identify the authority responsible, the statutory duty or right engaged, and the specific action sought: for instance, to conduct an inspection and file a report within a fixed time, to enforce particular conditions of an existing clearance, or to frame a scheme under a named provision. Where the facts are uncertain, a prayer for appointment of a commissioner or expert committee to inspect and report is often the appropriate first step.

Interim prayers should be proportionate. A request to halt a large public project entirely is rarely granted at the first hearing; a request to preserve the status quo on a specific aspect, or to ensure that particular safeguards are followed pending the hearing, has a better prospect.

Many public interest petitions concern local issues: a polluting unit, encroachment on a public space, conditions in a district hospital. The High Court under Article 226 is usually better placed to deal with such matters, and the Supreme Court frequently relegates them there. The Supreme Court is more likely to entertain a petition directly where the issue affects several States, involves a central law or a nationwide policy, or raises a question of national importance.