<p>This week, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has begun to hear a reference petition filed against the SC’s 2018 decision upholding the right of menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala temple. As part of the submissions, an interesting question has been raised by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government: is it time for the SC to re-examine its much-vaunted Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism, a unique home-grown innovation which has for long been lauded as a hallmark of our judiciary’s commitment to ensuring meaningful access to justice for all?</p>.Rethinking access to India's courts.<p>PILs are an extension of the court’s ordinary writ jurisdiction, allowing persons and communities to bring the court’s attention to matters of public importance even in instances where they may not be the directly affected parties. As Mehta pointed out, one of the driving principles behind this expansive constitutional device was to ensure that the poor and the marginalised would not be at a disadvantage in being able to approach courts. Justices P N Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer, in landmark cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983), led the way in ensuring that narrow locus standi requirements did not obstruct the articulation of community-based public interests.</p>.<p>The PIL mechanism, however, has evolved to more than merely allowing cases to be brought before the court. Judicial activism through PILs has allowed for courts to take suffering seriously, even by initiating fact-finding commissions and monitoring the implementation of court orders (PUCL v. Union of India [2001]). PILs have also been invoked in multiple cases, widening the articulation of fundamental rights (Justice (Retd.) K S Puttaswamy & Ors. [2017]).</p>.<p>Mehta argues that the PIL mechanism has outlived its usefulness, as the deficit initially identified in the 1980s of “vast sections of the population [being] structurally unable to access courts because of poverty, illiteracy, disability, detention, social exclusion and the sheer absence of institutional legal support” has been sufficiently addressed. He cites improvements in legal aid mechanisms, including the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and District LSAs, as well as the introduction of institutional support structures such as e-filing to argue that more citizens are now better placed to access justice than ever before.</p>.<p>The judiciary has seen significant improvements over the years in ensuring transparency and widening access to justice. Initiatives such as the National Judicial Data Grid and the eCourts project have gone a long way towards helping litigants and others access information. However, there remain significant gaps. Studies show that most people still find the legal system complex and difficult to navigate. Gender, caste, and other identity markers play a role in influencing the perception of access to justice, with women, for instance, noting that their complaints in police stations may often be treated differently and their cases are more likely to be dismissed at the first hearing.</p>.<p>Although NALSA and the state and district LSAs have expanded their reach, the 2025 India Justice Report notes that the number of paralegal volunteers deployed across India to aid in last-mile legal awareness and support decreased by 38% from 2019 to 2025. Furthermore, initiatives such as Lok Adalats have seen uneven implementation, with very low clearance rates and some states/Union Territories not organising any at all in the last few years.</p>.<p>The adoption of e-filing has been, in theory, a significant push for democratising access to justice. However, with nearly twice as many rural households lacking Internet access as urban households in 2025, and only 3.8% of rural households having access to stable, high-speed Internet, which is crucial for the high volume of documents to be uploaded on the e-filing portals, e-filing has not seen much uptake. e-Seva Kendras in many courts are non-functional or not manned by adequately trained and sufficient staff.</p>.<p>In the court, there is continued asymmetry during the course of a case. Persons with greater access to resources can afford to hire more senior lawyers and bear the costs of prolonged litigation. Easily digestible information in local languages, regular updates about case progress, and access to documents, affidavits, and other government records are not universally available, despite ongoing digitising efforts. Free legal aid is severely underfunded, with the national per capita average being just Rs 6.</p>.<p>Refining the framework</p>.<p>There is, therefore, a strong case for PILs to continue as a mechanism to ensure that even one underprivileged litigant is not left in the cracks. However, PILs have also evolved over the years, with many petitions dismissed by the courts as being frivolous and motivated by personal gain rather than true public interest.</p>.<p>Mehta and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rightly recognised that courts are being called upon more frequently to examine the cause of action in these ‘publicity interest’ litigations. However, solutions in this regard already exist. In 2010, the SC called upon high courts to frame rules for discouraging PILs filed with oblique motives. To strengthen the enforcement of these rules, the PIL cells/committees envisaged by them must be constituted, with the Registry being empowered to scrutinise the stated reasons for the PIL. The judges retain discretion in rejection/approval of the petition, and may choose to impose exemplary cost sanctions on those who waste the court’s time through frivolous litigation.</p>.<p>However, to do away with PILs entirely may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. PILs have been a unique mechanism by which the court exercises its authority to ensure that meaningful justice is obtained, not just at the time of approaching the court but throughout the journey towards articulating their rights. By continuing to strengthen the mechanism and privileging genuine expressions of public interest in the courts, access to justice can be widened for all.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is Senior Resident Fellow, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India [JALDI] Initiative at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)</em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>This week, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has begun to hear a reference petition filed against the SC’s 2018 decision upholding the right of menstruating women to enter the Sabarimala temple. As part of the submissions, an interesting question has been raised by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government: is it time for the SC to re-examine its much-vaunted Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism, a unique home-grown innovation which has for long been lauded as a hallmark of our judiciary’s commitment to ensuring meaningful access to justice for all?</p>.Rethinking access to India's courts.<p>PILs are an extension of the court’s ordinary writ jurisdiction, allowing persons and communities to bring the court’s attention to matters of public importance even in instances where they may not be the directly affected parties. As Mehta pointed out, one of the driving principles behind this expansive constitutional device was to ensure that the poor and the marginalised would not be at a disadvantage in being able to approach courts. Justices P N Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer, in landmark cases such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983), led the way in ensuring that narrow locus standi requirements did not obstruct the articulation of community-based public interests.</p>.<p>The PIL mechanism, however, has evolved to more than merely allowing cases to be brought before the court. Judicial activism through PILs has allowed for courts to take suffering seriously, even by initiating fact-finding commissions and monitoring the implementation of court orders (PUCL v. Union of India [2001]). PILs have also been invoked in multiple cases, widening the articulation of fundamental rights (Justice (Retd.) K S Puttaswamy & Ors. [2017]).</p>.<p>Mehta argues that the PIL mechanism has outlived its usefulness, as the deficit initially identified in the 1980s of “vast sections of the population [being] structurally unable to access courts because of poverty, illiteracy, disability, detention, social exclusion and the sheer absence of institutional legal support” has been sufficiently addressed. He cites improvements in legal aid mechanisms, including the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and District LSAs, as well as the introduction of institutional support structures such as e-filing to argue that more citizens are now better placed to access justice than ever before.</p>.<p>The judiciary has seen significant improvements over the years in ensuring transparency and widening access to justice. Initiatives such as the National Judicial Data Grid and the eCourts project have gone a long way towards helping litigants and others access information. However, there remain significant gaps. Studies show that most people still find the legal system complex and difficult to navigate. Gender, caste, and other identity markers play a role in influencing the perception of access to justice, with women, for instance, noting that their complaints in police stations may often be treated differently and their cases are more likely to be dismissed at the first hearing.</p>.<p>Although NALSA and the state and district LSAs have expanded their reach, the 2025 India Justice Report notes that the number of paralegal volunteers deployed across India to aid in last-mile legal awareness and support decreased by 38% from 2019 to 2025. Furthermore, initiatives such as Lok Adalats have seen uneven implementation, with very low clearance rates and some states/Union Territories not organising any at all in the last few years.</p>.<p>The adoption of e-filing has been, in theory, a significant push for democratising access to justice. However, with nearly twice as many rural households lacking Internet access as urban households in 2025, and only 3.8% of rural households having access to stable, high-speed Internet, which is crucial for the high volume of documents to be uploaded on the e-filing portals, e-filing has not seen much uptake. e-Seva Kendras in many courts are non-functional or not manned by adequately trained and sufficient staff.</p>.<p>In the court, there is continued asymmetry during the course of a case. Persons with greater access to resources can afford to hire more senior lawyers and bear the costs of prolonged litigation. Easily digestible information in local languages, regular updates about case progress, and access to documents, affidavits, and other government records are not universally available, despite ongoing digitising efforts. Free legal aid is severely underfunded, with the national per capita average being just Rs 6.</p>.<p>Refining the framework</p>.<p>There is, therefore, a strong case for PILs to continue as a mechanism to ensure that even one underprivileged litigant is not left in the cracks. However, PILs have also evolved over the years, with many petitions dismissed by the courts as being frivolous and motivated by personal gain rather than true public interest.</p>.<p>Mehta and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant rightly recognised that courts are being called upon more frequently to examine the cause of action in these ‘publicity interest’ litigations. However, solutions in this regard already exist. In 2010, the SC called upon high courts to frame rules for discouraging PILs filed with oblique motives. To strengthen the enforcement of these rules, the PIL cells/committees envisaged by them must be constituted, with the Registry being empowered to scrutinise the stated reasons for the PIL. The judges retain discretion in rejection/approval of the petition, and may choose to impose exemplary cost sanctions on those who waste the court’s time through frivolous litigation.</p>.<p>However, to do away with PILs entirely may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. PILs have been a unique mechanism by which the court exercises its authority to ensure that meaningful justice is obtained, not just at the time of approaching the court but throughout the journey towards articulating their rights. By continuing to strengthen the mechanism and privileging genuine expressions of public interest in the courts, access to justice can be widened for all.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is Senior Resident Fellow, Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India [JALDI] Initiative at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)</em></p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
