Revision summary
Public interest litigation grew because the Court stopped insisting that only a personally injured plaintiff could knock. Hussainara Khatoon read speedy trial into Article 21 for Bihar undertrials. S.P. Gupta opened standing; Bandhua Mukti Morcha let a voluntary body sue for bonded labourers. A letter could be treated as a writ; continuing mandamus kept administrations under watch. The Court is unusually interventionist on appointments and social rights. It is not the world’s most powerful if power means being always obeyed. Frivolous PIL should shrink; voiceless litigants have not vanished because GDP rose.
Model answer
Introduction
Public interest litigation was India’s answer to a poor litigant and a rich Constitution. From the late 1970s the Supreme Court loosened who may knock and how. That growth made the Court a household forum for bonded labour, undertrials and air. Whether it is the world’s most powerful court is a different sentence — half true about jurisdiction, less true about obedience.
Body
Why PIL grew
Ordinary civil procedure asked the petitioner to show a personal injury; that rule shut out those who could not instruct a lawyer.
- Peg: The Court relaxed locus standi: a public-spirited person, a journalist or a social worker could move for bonded labourers, undertrials and pavement dwellers.
- Peg: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar treated years of undertrial detention as a denial of Article 21 and read speedy trial into that article.
- Peg: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India opened standing for public-spirited lawyers; Bandhua Mukti Morcha let a voluntary body sue for quarry workers and keep the file under watch.
- Peg: After the Emergency the Court needed public legitimacy; newspapers, Article 39A legal aid and later rights institutions supplied facts and lawyers.
Method: letter, Article 21, continuing mandamus
The invention was procedure, not a new article.
- Peg: Epistolary jurisdiction let a postcard or a newspaper cutting be registered as a writ when the victim was voiceless; Article 32 was not to be ornamental.
- Peg: After Maneka Gandhi, Article 21 required fair, just and reasonable procedure, which opened undertrials, livelihood, environment and dignity.
- Peg: Vineet Narain used continuing mandamus so an investigation could not be buried; environment benches have done the same with rivers and air.
- Peg: Olga Tellis, Unni Krishnan and Vishaka show socio-economic and dignity claims riding the same expansion — with a later shadow of hobby petitions and publicity benches.
The world’s most powerful judiciary?
Power here mixes docket, appointments and obedience.
- Peg: After the Judges cases the Court largely appoints its own colleagues; in 2015 it struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act.
- Peg: Kesavananda Bharati lets it police constitutional amendments through the basic-structure doctrine — language the US Supreme Court does not use.
- Peg: It has no army and no budget of its own; farm-law protests, reservation politics and missed river-cleaning deadlines show that orders can be delayed or politically overrun.
- Peg: A fair sentence: PIL made the Court one of the most interventionist constitutional courts, and the collegium made it unusually self-recruiting. That is real power. In a republic, power still stops where legislatures, budgets and street politics refuse to follow.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD L[Relaxed locus] --> PIL[PIL] E[Epistolary Art 21] --> PIL PIL --> I[Interventionist court] I --> C[Collegium NJAC] I --> X[Compliance gap] PIL --> S[Socio-economic orders]
Conclusion
PIL grew because standing, Article 21 and epistolary practice opened the Court to those without retainers. That made a remarkably interventionist judiciary. ‘Most powerful in the world’ is true only if power means docket and appointments — not if it means always being obeyed.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q15). View answer →
-
Did Justices Bhagwati and Iyer invent PIL?
They built the practice. The text was always Articles 32 and 226. The invention was standing and the letter.
-
Should PIL shrink now that India is richer?
Frivolous PIL should. Bonded labour and undertrials have not vanished because GDP rose.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…"In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India. -
2025 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the evolution of collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA. -
2022 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"The most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court." Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws. -
2021 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. -
2018 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine. (15). -
2017 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle.
Indian Constitution
Tarkunde, Goswami, Law Commission 170/255 and the Election Commission have long asked for ceilings on party spend, faster petitions, and inner-party democracy. Candidate spend is capped; party spend is not, which is why money still dominates the poll. ADR disclosure and Lily Thomas reduced opacity and the conviction cushion; they did not end criminalisation. ONOE, as framed by the Kovind committee, promises one Model Code freeze, lower cost and less policy freeze. Federal cost: truncated Assemblies, President’s Rule risk, and nationalisation of State polls. Simultaneity is not a substitute for audited party finance and a statutory Code. Reform that works is a package, not a single polling date.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases?
Separation of Powers
Lok Adalat is a Legal Services Authorities Act forum: conciliation, award as a decree, generally no appeal. It hears civil matters and compoundable criminal cases, not non-compoundable crime. Arbitration is contractual under the 1996 Act: civil-commercial disputes, Section 34 challenge, no criminal trial. Booz Allen and Vidya Drolia mark what cannot be sent to a private tribunal. Permanent Lok Adalats for public utilities are a statutory hybrid, still not private arbitration. The working distinction is public compromise at little cost versus paid private adjudication.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
"The growth of cabinet system has practkally resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy." Elucidate.
Parliament and State Legislatures
Articles 74–75 keep the Cabinet responsible to the Lok Sabha; that is the legal core of parliamentary government. Whips and the Tenth Schedule, ordinances and money-bill classification have moved real initiation to the Cabinet. This is practical marginalisation of the floor, not a legal repeal of Parliament. PAC, standing committees, Rajya Sabha and the floor test still bite. Keisham Meghachandra pressed Speakers to decide disqualification on a clock. A narrower anti-defection law would restore some of the supremacy the quote says is lost. The examiner’s misspelling does not change the demand: show practice squeezing text, not text dying.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.