Q. Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

Model Answer:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL), pioneered by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati, fundamentally transformed Indian constitutional jurisprudence by democratizing access to justice.

1. Reasons for the Growth of PIL in India

• Relaxation of Locus Standi: Allowed public-spirited citizens to approach courts on behalf of marginalized groups (Bandhua Mukti Morcha).
• Epistolary Jurisdiction: Eliminated formal procedures by recognizing mere letters and telegrams as valid writ petitions (Sunil Batra).
• Expansion of Article 21: Broadened ‘Right to Life’ to include clean environment, dignity, and livelihood (M.C. Mehta).
• Executive and Legislative Apathy: Judicial interventions proactively filled governance vacuums during periods of policy paralysis or state inaction.
• Socio-Economic Disparities: Provided a critical constitutional remedy for poverty-stricken, illiterate masses facing systemic exploitation (Hussainara Khatoon).
• Collaborative Adjudication: Shifted from rigid adversarial litigation to appointing socio-legal fact-finding commissions for resolving public issues.

2. Has PIL Made the Indian SC the World’s Most Powerful?

Evidence of Unprecedented Power (Judicial Activism)

• Judicial Legislation: The SC drafts binding laws and frameworks through PIL rulings (Vishaka Guidelines, GRAP).
• Executive Micromanagement: Uses “continuous mandamus” to monitor state administration and high-profile investigations (2G Spectrum Scam, Electoral Bonds).
• Boundless Intervention: Exercises jurisdiction over virtually every administrative domain, from sports governance (BCCI) to air quality.

Constitutional Constraints (Nuancing the Absolute Power)

• Implementation Dependency: Lacks independent enforcement mechanisms, relying entirely on executive compliance to implement PIL directives.
• Parliamentary Overrides: Legislatures can nullify specific rulings via retrospective amendments, restricted only by the Basic Structure doctrine.
• Self-Imposed Restraint: SC frequently refuses to entertain PILs concerning foreign policy, defense, or macroeconomic strategies.
• Institutional Overload: Rampant pendency and structural capacity constraints practically limit judicial dominance.

While PILs have undoubtedly equipped the Indian Supreme Court with formidable socio-economic jurisdiction, its authority remains practically constrained and anchored within the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.